UNIVERSITY   OF    CALIFORNIA 
COLLEGE    OF   AGRICULTURE 
AGRICULTURAL   EXPERIMENT   STATION 
\  BERKELEY,  CALIFORNIA 


ECONOMIC   STATUS   OF   THE 
GRAPE    INDUSTRY 


S.  W.   SHEAR 

In  cooperation  with 
H.  F.  GOULD, 

Department  of  Research 
California  Development  Association 


BULLETIN  429 

June,  1927 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  PRINTING  OFFICE 

BERKELEY,  CALIFORNIA 

1927 


CONTENTS 

PAGE 

Foreword 4 

Conclusions  and  summary 5 

Types  of  grapes 10 

Acreage 13 

Production 22 

Production  forecast  for  California 31 

Annual  shipments 36 

California  shipments  by  varieties  and  classes 44 

California  shipments  of  juice  stock  and  table  stock 49 

Monthly  variation  in  shipments 53 

Weekly  variation  in  shipments 62 

Grape  by-products 73 

Principal  markets  for  California  grapes 78 

Foreign  trade  in  fresh  grapes 79 

Weekly  variation  in  prices 81 

Annual  prices  and  purchasing  power 85 

Price  outlook  and  problems  of  adjustment 95 

The  raisin  industry : 98 

Acknowledgments 110 

Appendix  of  tables Ill 

LIST  OF  TABLES 

TABLE  PAGE 

1.  Bearing,  non-bearing,  and  total  number  of  grapevines  in  the  United 

States,  by  chief  states  and  sections — 1910,  1920,  and  1925 12 

2.  Estimated  California  grape  acreage,  bearing,  non-bearing,  and  total, 

by  classes,  counties,  and  districts,  1926 18 

3.  United  States  production  of  grapes,  by  chief  states  and  sections,  1909 

and  1917-1926 24 

4.  Estimated  commercial  production  of  grapes  in  California,  by  classes, 

1899-1926 30 

5.  California  estimated  bearing  and  full-bearing  grape  acreage  and  yield 

per  full-bearing  acre  by  classes,  1919-1928 34 

6.  United  States  shipments  of  grapes,  by  chief  states    and    sections,    1917- 

1926 38 

7.  California  shipments  of  grapes,  by  counties  and  districts,  1919-1926 40 

8.  Estimates  of  California  grape  shipments  by  varieties  and  classes,  1919— 

1926 46 

9.  Estimates  of  California  grape  shipments  by  varieties  and  classes  as 

table  and  juice  stock,  1921,  1925,  and  1926 54 

10.  California  interstate  grape  shipments  from  north  of  Tehachapi,  annual 

1895-1926,  monthly  1903-1926 60 

11.  Weekly  grape  shipments,  United  States  and  California  by  sections,  1920 

and  1924-1926 64 

12.  Weekly  interstate  grape  shipments  from  California  north  of  Tehachapi, 

1913-1917  and  1922-1926 68 


TABLE  PAGE 

13.  Estimated  weekly  carload  shipments  of  California  grapes  by  classes,  1925 

and  1926 71 

14.  California's  canned-grape  pack,  1910-1926 74 

15.  Estimates  of  California's  output  of  dried  wine  grapes  and  of  all  grape 

juice  and  syrup,  1919-1921 75 

16.  Imports  of  fresh  grapes  into  the  United  States  by  chief  countries  of 

origin,  in  tons,  average  1910-1914,  annual  1920-1925 80 

17.  Weekly  eastern  delivered-auction  prices  of  California  grapes  per  lug  by 

varieties,  1924-1926 84 

18.  Prices  and  purchasing  power  of  California  Malaga  and  Tokay  grapes, 

1910-1926 86 

19.  Estimated  commercial  output,  price,  and  purchasing  power  of  Chautau- 

qua-Erie grapes,  1900-1926 89 

20.  California  production  of  raisins,  by  varieties,  1913-1925 101 

21.  Farm  price  and  purchasing  power   of   California   raisins,   by   varieties, 

1909-1926 105 

22.  Estimated  California  wine  grape  production,  by  uses,  1899-1918 Ill 

23.  Unloads  of  grapes,  total  from  all  states  and  from  California  by  chief 

cities  and  groups,  1924-1926 112 

24.  Freight  and  refrigeration  rates  on  grapes  by  rail  from  California  to 

New  York  and  to  Chicago,  1909-1926 118 

25.  Prices  and  purchasing  power  of  California  grapes  by  varieties,  1917-1926. 

(Eastern  delivered-auction  and  estimated  f.o.b.  shipping  point.) 120 

26.  Farm  price  and  purchasing  power  of  chief  farm  products  of  California 

grape-producing  sections,  1919-1926 122 

27.  United  States  production,  exports,  imports,  and  consumption  of  raisins; 

imports  of  currants,  and  consumption  of  raisins  and  currants,  1909- 
1926 124 

28.  United  States  monthly  shipments  of  grapes  by  chief  sections  of  origin, 

seasons  1920-1926 125 


FOREWORD 

This  bulletin  represents  the  results  of  a  cooperative  study  by  the 
Department  of  Research  of  the  California  Development  Association 
and  the  Division  of  Agricultural  Economics  of  the  College  of  Agri- 
culture. Under  an  agreement,  entered  into  in  1926,  these  two  institu- 
tions have  shared  in  equal  measure  the  responsibility  and  expense 
of  preparing  the  material  included  herein.  As  the  result  of  this 
arrangement,  a  preliminary  study  projected  and  undertaken  by 
Mr.  W.  L.  Connolly  of  the  California  Development  Association  has 
been  combined  with  subsequent  investigations  to  the  end  that  a  much 
more  comprehensive  publication  is  made  available  than  would  other- 
wise have  been  possible  at  the  present  time. 

The  primary  object  of  this  study  has  been  to  analyze  the  chief 
available  statistical  data  relating  to  the  industry  as  a  basis  for  a 
partial  and  tentative  answer  to  the  question,  "what  is  the  economic 
situation  of,  and  the  outlook  for,  California's  fresh-grape  industry?" 
The  study  has  been  carried  to  the  fullest  extent  warranted  in  a  general 
survey,  in  view  of  the  insistent  demand  for  the  information  upon  the 
part  of  agricultural  agencies. 

The  question  of  market  distribution,  important  as  it  is,  has  barely 
been  touched  upon  in  the  present  study,  chiefly  because  of  the  lack 
of  sufficient  data  to  serve  as  the  basis  for  making  safe  conclusions. 
There  is  urgent  need,  however,  for  a  special  and  intensive  study  of 
this  phase  of  the  grape  industry,  but  at  the  present  time  the  means 
are  not  available  for  making  the  extensive  first-hand  studies  which 
this  would  involve.  Absence  of  available  data  at  this  time  has  also 
made  it  necessary  to  omit  from  this  publication  any  discussion  of  the 
cost  of  producing  grapes. 

Those  who  wish  quickly  to  get  the  gist  of  the  study  without  reading 
it  in  detail  will  find  brief  Conclusions  and  a  Summary  given  in  the 
first  few  pages.  In  addition  one  may  quickly  visualize  many  of  the 
chief  facts  by  glancing  at  the  figures  and  reading  the  brief  story  under 
each  of  these. 

Preparation  of  the  bulletin  has  been  greatly  facilitated  by  the 
generous  assistance  of  many  individuals  and  organizations.  A  list 
of  these  is  given  in  the  Acknowledgments  on  page  110. 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2012  with  funding  from 

University  of  California,  Davis  Libraries 


http://www.archive.org/details/economicstatusof429shea 


ECONOMIC  STATUS  OF  THE  GRAPE  INDUSTRY 

S.  W.  SHEAEi  and  H.  F.  GOULD2 


CONCLUSIONS   AND    SUMMARY 

The  spectacular  expansion  in  California's  shipments,  acreage,  and 
production  of  grapes  in  the  last  ten  years  has  resulted  in  a  serious 
decline  in  the  farm  price  and  purchasing  power  of  the  whole  country  \s 
output  of  fresh  grapes  and  raisins  since  1921  and  1922.  Reliable  esti- 
mates of  California's  increasing  bearing  acreage  of  wine  and  of  table 
grapes  indicate  that  with  normal  yields  per  acre  the  state  production 
of  these  two  classes  of  grapes  will  continue  to  expand  during  the  next 
few  years.  Bearing  raisin-grape  acreage,  on  the  other  hand,  is  increas- 
ing little,  if  any,  and  hence  the  normal  production  of  this  class  of 
grapes  cannot  be  expected  to  increase  appreciably,  nor  returns  on 
raisins  to  fall  to  any  considerable  extent  below  those  of  recent  years. 
Unless  unexpected  and  important  changes  should  alter  the  situation, 
there  seems  little  likelihood  that  returns  from  fresh-grape  production 
will  appreciably  improve  for  several  years,  and  there  is  considerable 
likelihood  that  the  price  of  wine-grape  varieties  will  decline  below 
the  low  level  of  1926.  With  such  an  outlook,  growers  who  cannot 
produce  grapes  at  a  cost  as  low  as  the  returns  prevailing  in  the  last 
two  years,  or  lower,  should  not  consider  expanding  their  output. 

In  trying  to  visualize  the  market  outlook  for  grapes  in  the  next 
few  years,  it  is  necessary  to  consider  the  fact  that  the  production  of 
other  fruits,  many  of  which  compete  with  grapes  for  a  place  in  the 
consumer's  diet,  has  been  outstripping  demand  at  remunerative  prices 
in  recent  years.  The  national,  and  particularly  California's,  output 
of  tree  fruits  is  increasing  so  rapidly  that  an  abnormally  large  number 
of  producers  of  these  fruits  have  recently  suffered  from  unprofitably 
low  returns  for  their  fruit,  and  more  will  undoubtedly  suffer  in  the 
next  few  years.3  Analysis  of  available  data  points  to  the  fact  that 
large  increases  in  the  total  fruit  production  of  the  state  consistently 
result  in  low  prices  to  growers. 


1  Junior  Agricultural  Economist  in  the  Experiment  Station. 

2  Member  of  the  staff  of  the  Department  of  Eesearch,  California  Development 
Association. 

3  In  summarizing  the  outlook  for  the  whole  fruit  industry  of  the  United  States, 
The  Agricultural  Outlook  for  1927  emphasizes  the  fact  that  "the  present  trend 
of  fruit  production  is  upward  and  there  is  little  on  which  to  base  hope  for  any- 
marked  improvement  in  prices  over  those  secured  during  recent  years. "  (U.  S. 
Bur.  Agr.  Econ.  Staff,  The  Agricultural  Outlook  for  1927.  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.  Misc. 
Cir.  101:4,  34.    February,  1927.) 


6  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

Effective  technical  methods  have  been  devised  for  processing,  pre- 
serving, and  storing  many  of  California's  better  grape  by-products. 
Up  to  the  present  time,  however,  the  market  demand  for  such  products 
has  been  insufficient  to  dispose  of  any  appreciable  quantity  of  grapes, 
and  the  outlook  for  large-scale  utilization  in  this  manner  seems 
unpromising. 

Although  markets  for  fresh  grapes  can  be  increased  somewhat  by 
wider  and  more  efficient  distribution,  it  seems  unlikely  that  any 
improvements  in  marketing  which  take  place  in  the  next  few  years 
will  be  sufficient  to  dispose  of  the  forecasted  normal  production  of 
California  grapes  at  prices  above  those  of  the  past  two  years.  Any 
comprehensive  plan  for  bringing  substantial  and  immediate  relief 
to  the  grape  industry  must  recognize  that  there  will  in  all  probability 
be  a  normal  over-supply  of  grapes  in  this  country,  at  least  during  the 
peak  weeks  of  the  shipping  seasons,  in  the  next  few  years.  Because 
of  this  fact,  profitable  marketing  requires  a  plan  that  will  avoid  the 
harvesting  and  shipping  of  grapes  of  such  quality  or  in  such  quantity 
as  at  any  time  to  glut  all  markets  and  make  prices  generally  too  low 
to  cover  the  cost  of  harvesting,  transporting,  and  marketing. 

Since  by-products  and  improvements  in  marketing  alone  fail  to 
promise  adequate  relief  to  the  fresh-grape  industry,  ways  and  means 
of  reducing  costs  of  production,  and  of  decreasing  the  commercial 
output  of  the  industry  must  be  considered.  Both  of  these  are  prob- 
lems of  readjustment  which  growers  must  largely  work  out  in  the  light 
of  the  particular  economic  conditions  and  choices  which  confront  each 
as  individuals.  The  question  before  each  is  how  to  make  the  best 
of  the  situation  in  which  he  finds  himself.  In  many  cases,  without 
increasing  the  total  acreage  or  production  of  grapes  and  without  an 
increase  in  price,  growers  can  increase  their  net  returns  by  renting 
or  buying  at  a  fair  figure  neighboring  acreage  already  in  grapes. 
Others  may  find  it  possible  to  reduce  costs,  or  increase  yields  out  of 
proportion  to  costs,  sufficiently  to  justify  them  in  operating  the  same 
acreage  of  grapes  as  they  have  in  the  past.  Some  may  find  it  profit- 
able actually  to  uproot  a  portion  of  their  vines  and  replace  them  with 
other  crops.  Still  others  will  probably  find  that  their  best  alternative 
— temporarily,  at  least — is  to  diversify  somewhat  more  than  has  been 
their  practice  in  the  past.  In  extreme  cases  some  growers  may  find 
it  necessary  even  to  discontinue  farming  for  themselves  and  hire  out 
for  wages,  either  on  the  ranch  or  in  the  city. 

The  outstanding  facts  regarding  the  present  status  and  recent 
developments  in  the  grape  industry  which  have  led  to  the  foregoing 
conclusions  are  summarized  in  the  following  four  pages. 


BUL.  429]  ECONOMIC  STATUS  OF  THE  GRAPE   INDUSTRY  7 

Among  all  the  fruit  shipments  originating  in  the  United  States 
in  the  last  few  years,  grapes  have  ranked  second  only  to  apples,  aver- 
aging about  16  per  cent  of  the  country's  total  carlot  movement  of  all 
fruits.  During  this  same  period  California's  grape  shipments  greatly 
exceeded  those  of  any  other  California  fruit  or  vegetable,  averaging 
27  per  cent  of  the  carloadings  of  all  perishables  in  the  state.  The  bulk 
of  summer  fruits  in  the  United  States  moves  before  the  heavy  ship- 
ments of  California  grapes  in  September  and  October. 

The  rapid  expansion  in  California  grape  shipments  since  the 
World  War  has  largely  been  responsible  for  the  fact  that  the  country 's 
total  shipments  of  fresh  grapes  have  doubled  since  1920,  increasing 
from  about  37,000  carloads  to  76,000.  While  California's  shipments 
of  grapes  increased  125  per  cent  from  1920  to  1926,  shipments  orig- 
inating in  all  other  states  increased  barely  25  per  cent.  The  percent- 
age of  the  country's  grape  shipments  from  California  rose  from  about 
70  per  cent  in  1920  to  an  average  of  over  85  per  cent  in  the  last  three 
years ;  at  the  same  time,  approximately  one-half  of  the  grapes  pro- 
duced in  the  state  were  dried  for  raisins. 

The  rapid  expansion  of  the  grape  industry  in  California  as  com- 
pared with  the  rest  of  the  United  States  has  been  primarily  the  result 
of  prohibition,  which  caused  a  sudden  and  great  reduction  in  the 
utilization  of  wine  grapes  by  California  wineries  and  a  gradual  but 
tremendous  increase  in  eastern  consumption  of  fresh  wine  and  raisin- 
grape  varieties  for  juice  purposes.  Before  1915  practically  none  of 
the  grapes  shipped  from  the  state  were  designed  for  wine  making. 
By  1921,  however,  almost  20,000  carloads  of  juice  stock  were  shipped, 
and  in  the  last  two  years  an  average  of  nearly  50,000  carloads,  or 
approximately  70  per  cent  of  California's  grape  shipments  have  been 
juice  stock. 

Of  California's  grape  shipments  in  1926,  all  of  the  wine-grape 
varieties,  16  per  cent  of  the  raisin-grape  varieties,  and  about  13  per 
cent  of  the  table-grape  varieties  were  classified  as  juice  stock.  The 
chief  California  wine-grape  varieties  in  their  approximate  order  of 
importance  as  shipping  grapes  were  Zinfandel,  Alicante  Bouschet, 
Carignane,  Mission,  Mataro,  and  Petite  Sirah.  The  outstanding 
varieties  of  table  grapes  shipped  were  Malaga,  Tokay,  and  Emperor ; 
and  of  raisin  grapes,  Muscat  and  Thompson  Seedless  (Sultanina). 
Most  fresh  Muscat  shipments  and  about  half  of  the  shipments  of 
Malagas  were  juice  stock.  From  1920  to  1926  California's  shipments 
of  table-grape  varieties  increased  about  80  per  cent,  wine-grape  varie- 
ties practically  doubled,  and  raisin-grape  varieties  increased  over 
seven  times.     Of  the  64,000  carloads  of  grapes  originating  in  Cali- 


8  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

fornia  in  1926,  about  40  per  cent  were  wine-grape  varieties,  37  per 
cent  table-grape  varieties,  and  23  per  cent  raisin-grape  varieties. 

The  diversion  of  nearly  all  the  wine-grape  production  of  the  state 
and  large  quantities  of  raisin-grape  production  into  the  channel  of 
fresh  shipments,  largely  as  juice  stock,  in  the  last  few  years  is  mainly 
responsible  for  the  fact  that  California's  shipments  of  grapes  have 
increased  much  more  rapidly  than  has  her  production  or  acreage. 
While  the  grape  shipments  of  the  state  more  than  doubled  from  1920 
to  1926,  acreage  practically  doubled,  but  production  increased  only 
a  little  more  than  50  per  cent. 

Central  and  northern  California  each  produces  and  ships  more 
grapes  than  are  grown  in  the  whole  country  outside  of  California. 
Even  the  production  of  the  southern  district,  although  less  than  5  per 
cent  of  the  state's  total  output  of  grapes,  is  somewhat  greater  than 
that  of  New  York,  the  most  important  grape-producing  state  except 
California.  The  northern  district  of  California,  the  second  most 
important  grape-producing  section  of  the  country,  has  long  been  the 
center  of  wine-grape  production  in  the  United  States.  Production  of 
raisin  and  table  grapes  in  California  is  confined  largely  to  the  central 
district,  which  includes  most  of  the  San  Joaquin  Valley.  For  many 
years  this  has  been  the  most  important  grape-producing  section  in 
the  United  States,  and  its  proportion  of  the  state's  total  production 
has  steadily  and  rapidly  increased.  In  1925  the  central  district 
accounted  for  approximately  70  per  cent  of  the  total  grape  production 
of  the  United  States,  about  95  per  cent  of  the  total  raisin  crop,  and 
more  than  60  per  cent  of  the  nation's  carlot  movement  of  fresh  grapes. 

The  increasing  importance  of  California  juice-stock  shipments  is 
in  a  large  measure  responsible  for  the  enormous  growth  in  the  state 's 
grape  shipments  during  the  months  of  September  and  October.  The 
major  peak  of  California  grape  shipments  usually  occurs  about  the 
middle  of  September  and  a  large  secondary  peak  near  the  middle  of 
October.  On  the  average,  during  the  years  1913-1917,  only  slightly 
over  800  carloads  of  grapes  a  week  rolled  from  California  in  the  six 
weeks  from  the  middle  of  September  to  the  latter  part  of  October. 
The  average  weekly  movement  during  the  same  six  weeks  in  the  years 
1922-1926  was  over  4,800,  or  somewhat  more  than  six  times  that  of 
1913-1917. 

California's  most  serious  competition  with  eastern  (labrusca) 
grape  shipments  comes  from  the  Great  Lakes  states,  New  York,  Michi- 
gan, Pennsylvania,  and  Ohio,  and  usually  occurs  in  a  period  of  six 
weeks  centering  in  October.     The  peak  of  United  States  shipments, 


BUL.  429]  ECONOMIC   STATUS  OF   THE  GRAPE  INDUSTRY  9 

which  normally  occurs  during  this  period,  is  caused  by  California's 
large  but  secondary  peak,  and  by  the  heaviest  movement  of  the  season 
from  the  Great  Lakes  states.  California  can  expect  but  little  increase 
in  the  competitive  shipments  of  grapes  from  this  section,  as  the  expan- 
sion of  acreage  between  1920  and  1925  was  smaller  than  in  any  other 
important  grape-producing  area. 

The  very  rapid  rate  of  expansion  of  the  vinif  era-grape  industry 
of  Arizona  in  recent  years  has  appreciably  increased  the  competition 
which  shipments  of  early  California  grapes  are  meeting  in  eastern 
markets  in  June  and  July.  About  one-fourth  as  many  carloads  of 
grapes  were  shipped  from  Arizona  as  from  Imperial  County  in  1926. 
Arizona  shipped  almost  70  carloads  of  early  grapes  in  1926  compared 
with  about  10  in  1920.  Indications  are  that  Arizona's  output  will 
continue  to  expand,  as  the  number  of  vines,  which  is  now  nearly  half 
as  great  as  in  Imperial  County,  increased  about  seven  times  from 
1920  to  1925,  or  slightly  faster  than  in  Imperial  County. 

There  is  also  rapidly  increasing  competition  in  late  August  and 
early  September  between  California  grape  shipments  and  those  from 
the  Central  West,  particularly  from  the  Ozark  region  in  Arkansas 
and  Missouri.  These  two  states,  which  together  shipped  less  than 
50  cars  of  grapes  in  1920,  shipped  about  1,900  carloads  in  1926.  The 
number  of  vines  in  the  same  period  approximately  doubled  and,  as 
many  of  the  younger  vines  have  not  yet  reached  full  bearing,  further 
increases  in  the  commercial  output  from  these  states  may  be  expected. 

California's  full-bearing  acreage  of  all  grapes,  with  the  exception 
of  raisin  grapes,  promises  to  continue  upward  until  1928  at  least, 
and  therefore  normal  production  can  likewise  be  expected  to  increase 
somewhat  in  proportion.  It  is  evident  that,  with  75  per  cent  of  the 
grape  vines  in  the  United  States  on  California  ranches  and  a  prefer- 
ence on  the  part  of  most  consumers  for  vinifera  varieties,  this  state 
will  continue  to  furnish  most  of  the  country's  supply  of  grapes. 
Even  the  possible  decrease  in  shipments  of  juice  grapes  that  might 
take  place  in  case  of  rulings  adverse  to  such  movement,  would  not 
deprive  California  of  her  dominant  position  in  the  shipping  of  fresh 
grapes. 

A  study  of  the  weekly  variation  in  the  prices  of  different  varieties 
of  grapes  in  1924  and  in  1926  discloses  two  general  tendencies  for 
nearly  every  variety :  first,  to  be  high  in  price  early  in  the  season ; 
and,  second,  to  rise  in  the  latter  part  of  September  or  more  usually 
in  October.  Wine  grapes  and  Muscats  show  less  of  a  tendency  to 
bring  high  prices  in  the  first  weeks  they  come  upon  the  market  than 
do  table  grapes,  and  more  of  a  tendency  to  rise  above  the  average 


10  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

in  October,  the  month  in  which  the  demand  for  juice  grapes  for  wine- 
making  purposes  is  usually  the  greatest. 

The  annual  average  prices  of  wine  and  of  table-grape  varieties  in 
eastern  markets  have  moved  up  and  down  together  rather  consistently. 
Prices  of  wine  grapes,  however,  have  averaged  above  those  of  table 
grapes  in  every  year  since  1917.  Continuation  of  the  rapid  increase 
in  shipments  of  wine-grape  varieties  will  probably  result  in  their 
price  falling  to  about  that  of  table-grape  varieties  within  the  next 
few  years.  The  annual  prices  of  fresh  raisin  grapes  in  eastern 
markets  has  consistently  been  much  lower  than  those  of  wine  and  of 
table  grapes  and  has  shown  no  particular  tendency  to  move  closely 
with  the  prices  of  the  latter  two  classes. 

The  high  prices  and  the  high  purchasing  power  of  fresh  grapes 
from  1919  through  1922,  and  of  raisins  from  1919  through  1921,  were 
responsible  for  stimulating  a  tremendous  and  unwise  increase  in  the 
grape  acreage  of  the  state,  the  effects  of  which  have  since  been  shown 
in  increased  output  and  a  considerable  decline  in  prices  and  purchas- 
ing power.  From  1917  to  1921  the  purchasing  power  of  both  table 
and  wine-grape  varieties  rapidly  doubled  and  actual  prices,  because 
of  the  great  decline  in  the  purchasing  power  of  the  dollar,  rose  even 
faster.  Since  1921  their  price  and  purchasing  power  has  declined 
precipitously.  Returns  per  ton  on  California  table-grape  varieties 
have  been  below  pre-war  purchasing  power  in  the  last  two  years  and, 
if  anywhere  near  full  crops  are  produced,  will  probably  remain  near 
this  low  level  for  the  next  few  years.  With  an  outlook  for  a  con- 
siderable increase  in  the  normal  production  of  wine-grape  varieties 
for  several  years,  it  seems  probable  that  the  purchasing  power  of 
these  grapes  will  fall  below  the  level  of  1926. 

TYPES  OF  GRAPES 

Vinifera  or  European  Type  Most  Important. — There  are  three 
main  types  of  grapes  produced  in  the  United  States— the  vinifera, 
labrusca,  and  rotundifolia  (muscadine).  The  vinifera,  or  European 
type,  of  which  many  varieties  are  grown  in  California,  is  by  far  the 
most  important  commercially,  not  only  in  the  United  States,  but  in 
foreign  countries  as  well.  Grapes  of  the  vinifera  type  produce  prac- 
tically all  of  the  world's  wine;  they  are  the  only  ones  from  which 
raisins  and  currants  can  be  made ;  and  they  possess  better  shipping 
qualities  than  do  American  varieties. 

California's  output  of  grapes  consists  almost  entirely  of  varieties 
of  the  vinifera  species.    In  the  United  States  the  Mediterranean  type 


BUL.  429]  ECONOMIC  STATUS  OF  THE  GRAPE  INDUSTRY  11 

of  climate  with  warm,  dry,  sunny  summers  essential  to  the  successful 
production  of  the  vinifera  varieties,  prevails  over  a  large  area  only 
in  California,  to  a  more  limited  extent  in  Arizona,  and  in  a  few  small 
sections  in  Texas.4  Arizona,  however,  is  the  only  state,  aside  from 
California,  in  which  any  considerable  area  is  suited  to  the  production 
of  the  vinifera  species.  A  number  of  the  larger  river  valleys  and  low 
mesas  in  Arizona  below  2,500  feet  elevation  are  specially  suited  to 
the  production  of  very  early  Thompson  Seedless  (Sultanina)  and 
Malagas.  "Commercial  grape  growing  in  this  area  centers  largely 
in  the  Salt  River,  Yuma,  and  Casa  Grande  valleys."5  Of  the  land 
comprising  the  irrigation  projects  in  these  valleys,  at  least  100,000 
acres  is  good  grape  soil.  The  heavy  planting  of  grapes  in  Arizona 
during  recent  years  is  indicated  by  the  large  increase  in  vines  of  all 
ages  from  about  400  acres  in  1920  to  approximately  3,000  acres  in 
1925.6 

Eastern  Labrusca  Second  in  Importance. — The  labrusca  species 
of  grapes,  popularly  known  as  the  American  or  eastern  grape,  is 
second  in  commercial  importance  in  the  United  States,  and  is  grown  in 
practically  all  sections  of  the  country.  Of  the  many  varieties  of  this 
species  of  grapes  with  their  thin  slip-skins  and  their  characteristic 
tang,  perhaps  the  best  known  are  the  Concord,  the  Niagara,  the  Dela- 
ware, and  the  Catawba.  All  are  primarily  table  grapes,  with,  however, 
a  considerable  utilization  in  making  both  fermented  and,  in  particular, 
unfermented  juice.  Outside  of  California7  and  Arizona,  these  are  the 
principal  grapes  grown  on  a  commercial  scale.  The  two  chief  sections 
producing  eastern  grapes  in  any  considerable  volume  may,  for  con- 
venience, be  designated  as  the  Great  Lakes  section,  comprising  certain 
portions  of  New  York,  Pennsylvania,  Ohio,  and  Michigan;  and  the 
central  western  section,  which  embraces  rather  localized  areas  in 
Iowa,  Nebraska,  Kansas,  Missouri,  Illinois,  and  Arkansas. 


4  For  a  brief  discussion  of  grape  growing  in  Texas,  see  Munson,  W.  B.,  Grape 
growing  in  Texas.  Calif.  Grape  Grower,  4io:  4-5.  October,  1923.  A  general  dis- 
cussion of  the  prospects  for  growing  vinifera  grapes  on  reclaimed  arid  lands 
outside  of  California  is  given  in  Nougaret,  E.  L.,  Status  of  California  grape  in- 
dustry, June  30,  1921.     Calif.  Dept.  Agr.  Spec.  Pub.  11:   35-38.     1921. 

s  Tor  a  brief  discussion  of  the  outlook  for  vinifera  grape  production  in  Arizona, 
upon  which  statements  in  this  paragraph  are  based,  see  Crider,  F.  T.,  Grapes  in 
Arizona.     California   Grape  Grower,  4" :    4.     July  1,   1923. 

G  Rough  estimates  of  acreages  based  upon  census  data  on  number  of  vines  of 
all  ages,  which  were  118,000  in  1920  and  868,000  in  1925. 

7  See  Bonnet,  L.  O.,  Eastern  Grapes  in  California  (California  Grape  Grower, 
51 :  14.  January,  1924),  concerning  the  adaptability  of  the  labrusca  type  of 
grape  to  California  conditions.  The  California  Grape  Grower,  6^:  3.  May,  1925, 
reports  that  18,000  Concord  vines  were  recently  planted  at  Paradise  in  Butte 
County. 


12 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


m 

H 

H 

< 

'^ 

H 

^ 

03 

4^ 

w 

o 

fc 

o 

CI 
OS 

o 
o 

r-i 

0) 

H 

n 

•  r-5 

% 

-4 

1—1 

0 

rtf 

W 

w 
o 

a 

-© 

>o 

s 

T-l 

c^ 

co 

00 

© 

<T> 

^ 

c^ 

-t< 

CO 

CM 

C33 

oo 

lO 

lO 

© 

-3 

© 

letOMONNNNTllOlNOOXONNTllH 

a 

M 

a 

03  g> 

rH 

£°© 

o3 
03 

M  a>© 
r1  *  « 

o 

CM 

© 

1 

0OOOO00OOOC50OOO00O 

oooooooooooooooooo 

43 

^C03 

'ej 

|g 

O 

C  a; 

o 

© 

U>MHrttDO>OOrtOO^OlWO>iflNKI* 

OooiocO'-H»-iO'H^HOooq^<<McoooTticow 

H 

O  Ot 

C 

02 

tH 

T-l                _l     t-H     CM     *H     *H     t-l     tH                ^H^IrtrtrH^HC^TH 

T3 
M  CI 

8_:3 

o 
o 

COOt^lOOtOO>0-«t<CM(M^«»-i-HOC>Oe»» 

n^  o 

03  kh  +5 

o 

T-l 

t-    1C    T-(                      N     H     " 

»o 

Pm  o 

CNI 

«3  S 

8 

«03<£>T-HCOO>»H-<j<ooa5oei»03<-Ni<-Mu3ioio 
co-*t^t^-^o>i«r^— it^oo«Door-iT-ir-<cooo 

(O    13    «    ■*    00    0_   tO    00_    <M_    I>-_    t~-    a»    H    M    CO    H    ©    9 

^3  O 

42 

l> 

^  d 

a 

rH 

o   ©   "o"  <n   h   h   n   oo  t>T  r>T  oo"  in   in   tjT  <m*  <m"  of  of 

o 

3 

fc 

00 

OOC»OCM©C-CO»-i                      iH                                                 T-l 

CO 

*M      H                                         T-l 

-d 

CI 
o3  bo 

1°°- 

o 

OO'fiOHONNOrtOOMHmNNlOia 

Pm  o 

1 

0>mO!'*Ort»IN'*mNMHOOOO'ji 

to   -*    i-h                co   es    t-i 

u 

<T> 

TjNNinu)iaHN»)i(<iOKl<OCOM!DOH 
OOONNNtfHOOtONOOmONOOlr- 
K>OOiHnN10p>ONOOO»*OONOONnM 

4> 

•<*< 

43 

3  § 

£ 

<#     M     O)     rt                0O1ONHNNC0IN                rH     rH     rt     rt 

3 

m 

© 

H 

<s 

T-l   1— 1 

to 

ir> 

0>r-HC0t^00<00>C3t-~<-MT^©-^^HOi0C0t- 

© 

OO^OOCONOi-IOOOOWflOrtOOOOaiO 

coo©©         ooinoitiiortTjiHHcoHfji 

co 

o  b 

C-" 

H    X    N                      (O    N    H                               rt                                                 tH 

Z&S 

C-* 

es   t-h 

-Q 

bO 

"* 

WtDr|lO0N«)N0OO0lN'itlMU5N«lrHN^ 

a 

LO 

9>!D^n'i»lia9)NCS<0U5OTl<O'*OOt0 
HHONClUSt-tDO'JliOM'JIOCO'flN'* 

t- 

Irt 

M    lO    N    O             NlflOHNtBpiN             T-HT-li-icyj 

W      »     •*      rH                 t-lftfOrt 

C<I 

CN) 

tH 

PQ 

03         ^ 

o 

NO»i*i«cooi»coMiN(emnoo)NM 

03  bfi 

bO  A 
C3"fi 

'C   83 

03««-c  += 

1 

(O^diflOMNN^NW^HOOOrtlfi 
IC    M    N                      CO    «S    — I 

Pn  o 

03  43 

f_ 

§ 

**iOCS^(0<l*M^MCOn'*»OM<i 

03 

NNHOOOll-OOOOOlOOHHOOUJMMft 

43 

co 

(ON01«iOIDI8!OOONN«iOO>*«JiN<* 

3§ 

s 

c-^ 

CO-^OO-^             MMKJNtDOONM             CMCMCOt- 

o 

o 
H 

3 

OOCnt—    i— i©4tOCO'-H                      tH                                                 tH 

© 

bfl 

s 

(OHHffiU3MHP)OM*HfflXOOtDMH 

© 

o  b 

<M 

o>co»o               coe»co»-ii-i         t-i                                ^* 

43 

LO 

CO     <M    >-l                      tH 

,_, 

»«T(lOffiM»(NMHNpiN©0'l<OM 
9l(OOWOiOrtOHN(N[-NONOOa)H 

OOJOOONW^OOONWOOOOOHOIOON 

a 

o 

© 

03 

•«* 

Tjl©0O-*l             OtOr-Hr-HioOOOCO             (N    rt     N    M 

^tr^iQr-ieoiAeoTH                rA                                   r-i 

es 

es 

»H 

PQ 

B 

03 

u 

■c 

CI 
o3 

I 

*3 

c. 

X 

> 
a 

"5 

ii 
is 

o  ? 

t 

B 

'S 

8 

3 

CO 

s 

n 

?: 

0 

1 
t/2 

in 

W 

w 

! 

*»XT3T3>+;^     O     OS's; 
L  _,     5     S   13   -°   tJ     .    j3     CI     c 

3  O  55  DQ  £  w  o 

73  i  9  §  f 

■S  -h  i  3  c 

fl  g  <5  Ph  m 

03 

u 

03      . 

if 

P 

y 

<! 

^PJ|"2 

£©  03 j3  _  3 


D<  QJ    03 


^^ 


a 


3  --J'S.«     «-     03 

-iw'S-S.S  >> 

O^;   »   «  c  j3 
►>  O  eS  «  g  oj 

03       .Jlii    O    0 

3  03^3 

DQr/;  S-D^i; 
^     ."S.-g  b£T3 

'"1  s 


0)   03  .J3 


i-5<J^ 


a  2  ci  wua  g 
pci^O-gJ  a 

83   O  S  03   C>   O 

03    fc^  Q,  03    (h 

5-iS    03  "'T3'*-' 

S0J  43    S    03 

PQg-    _ 

03-1    S^-" 

?  U  9  o  s 


*J   oo   83 


U  3-2    >    43 

•     .  bfi  >  03  +J 

CC  -J  cx3  03  >-i  cS 

^   rJ  83  Q  +-?  03 

Spq.s|«^ 
2  «  S  £So 
**-  c«a  ^c^1 

0    03    03    03    03    cS 

h  B  mi  „,  -p 

~°  «  8  lQ 
o^.2  flea 

"  03  03-3  S  03 
83  Ti  +iW:r1  -^ 

IS' 


a^a 


•EJ3- 


43  a1 


Xi 


S3      S 

^     OS--1^   03-^   03--; 
03  «.2JS  3SJ-S 

>>    cS  CI     -T3   ^   03  O 


.24 .5  °°  oj 


o^ 


03AJ    4)    5 


OJO      .  OJ^rS    03 

.5  ej  03  03;      3 
h-r.  Ii  OJ        03 


BUL.  429]  ECONOMIC  STATUS  OF  THE  GRAPE  INDUSTRY  13 

Slight  Commercial  Importance  of  Muscadine  Grapes. — The  rotundi- 
folia  species  of  native  American  grape,  popularly  known  as  the 
Muscadine  type,  of  which  the  Scuppernong  is  the  oldest  and  best 
known  variety,  is  of  little  commercial  importance  in  the  United  States, 
and  is  scarcely  ever  grown  in  other  countries.  Recent  developments 
in  methods  of  using  this  type  of  grape  have  resulted,  however,  in  a 
more  widespread  interest  in  its  planting  in  the  South  Atlantic  and 
Gulf  Coast  states,  where  there  is  already  a  considerable  acreage, 
largely  in  the  form  of  home  vineyards.8 


ACREAGE 

Increase  in  United  States  and  California  Grape  Acreage,  1920  to 
1925. — The  growth  of  the  grape  industry  in  the  United  States  since 
the  war  is  probably  most  accurately  pictured  by  the  increase  in  the 
number  of  grape  vines  between  1920  and  1925.  According  to  the 
census,  during  this  five-year  period  the  number  of  vines  of  all  ages 
in  the  whole  country  rose  from  253  million  to  382  million,  an  increase 
of  approximately  50  per  cent.  Expansion  was  much  more  rapid  in 
California  than  in  the  rest  of  the  United  States,  California's  increase 
being  over  60  per  cent  compared  with  29  per  cent  for  all  other  states.9 
The  number  of  vines  reported  for  California  in  1920  was  about  175 
million,  compared  with  281  million  in  1925 ;  and  in  all  other  states 
79  million  in  1920,  as  against  101  million  in  1925.  California's  por- 
tion of  all  vines  in  the  United  States  rose  during  this  time  from  69 
per  cent  of  the  total  to  almost  75  per  cent  with  a  corresponding  decline 
in  the  proportion  of  vines  in  other  states. 

Outstanding  Importance  of  Grape  Production  in  Central  Califor- 
nia.— For  many  years  the  central  district  of  California  has  been  the 
most  important  grape-producing  section  in  the  United  States,  and  its 
proportion  of  the  state's  crop  has  shown  a  steady  and  rapid  increase. 
According  to  our  national  census,  about  34  per  cent  of  the  grape  vines 


8  Corbett,  L.  C,  et  al.  Fruit  and  vegetable  production.  U.  S.  Department  of 
Agriculture  Yearbook,  1925:279.  1926.  The  portion  of  this  article  dealing  with 
grape  production  in  the  United  States,  pp.  272-284,  was  written  by  George  C. 
Husmann.  It  sketches  very  briefly  the  history  of  grape  growing  in  this  country, 
.showing  on  maps  the  geographical  changes  in  production  by  decades  from  1849 
to  1919. 

9  Census  data  (see  table  1,  page  12)  and  estimates  of  the  California  Crop 
Eeporting  Service  do  not  agree  exactly  on  California's  vineyard  growth  from 
1920  to  1925.  The  increase  in  acreage  as  reported  by  the  latter  was  approxi- 
mately 70  per  cent  during  this  period  against  an  increase  in  number  of  vines  of 
slightly  over  60  per  cent  according  to  the  United  States  Census  of  Agriculture  for 
1925.  The  acreage  estimates  of  the  California  Crop  Eeporting  Service  for  Cali- 
fornia have  been  used  in  this  bulletin  except  in  a  few  unavoidable  instances. 


14 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


Bul.  429] 


ECONOMIC   STATUS   OF   THE   GRAPE   INDUSTRY 


Key  Mop  of   Co/itbmia  Counties   and  Districts 


SISKIYOU  |     MODOC 


Northern   District 


Central  District 


rW  )  RIVERSIDE 

Southern  District  N?k 

**,.  I       IMPERIAL 

Z«r  (Jior/tston,  S  C. 


Fig.  2. — Tlie  heavy  solid  line  indicates  boundaries  of  districts  along  county 
lines,  and  the  heavy  dotted  lines  boundaries  of  shipping  districts.  The  boundaries 
of  the  shipping  districts  are  those  used  by  the  Market  News  Service  of  the  United 
States  Bureau  of  Agricultural  Economics  and  conform  closely  to  the  usual  divi- 
sions along  county  lines,  except  that  the  Bureau  includes  San  Joaquin  County 
shipments  from  south  of  a  line  running  through  Stockton  in  the  central  district, 
whereas  San  Joaquin  County  as  a  whole  is  usually  included  in  the  northern  dis- 
trict of  California  when  the  divisions  are  made  along  county  lines.  The  Bureau 
also  separates  the  Imperial  district  from  the  rest  of  the  southern  district.  The 
Bureau's  boundary  line  separating  the  central  and  southern  districts  is  the 
approximate  line  dividing  the  state  into  north  and  south  of  Tehaohapi  (a  rugged 
mountain  barrier  separating  the  northern  and  southern  part  of  the  state  except 
along  the  coast).     A  list  of  the  counties  in  each  of  the  districts  according  to 

county  lines  is  given  in  table  2,  page  18. 

•         [Continued  on  page  16] 


16  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

in  the  United  States  were  in  the  central  district  in  1909.  The  per- 
centage had  increased  to  45  by  1920,  and  in  1925  one-half  of  all  the 
country's  vines  were  found  in  this  district  and  nearly  70  per  cent  of 
California's  total  acreage.  In  1926  the  central  district  contained 
about  one-third  of  the  wine-grape  acreage  of  the  state,  over  55  per 
cent  of  the  table-grape  acreage  and  over  90  per  cent  of  the  raisin-grape 
acreage.10 

Northern  California  Is  Third  in  Vines  but  Second  in  Output. — 
The  northern  district  of  California,  which  has  long  been  the  chief 
center  of  the  wine-grape  industry  of  the  United  States,  until  recent 
years  ranked  second  only  to  central  California  in  grape  production. 
During  the  decade  from  1910  to  1920,  however,  both  the  output  and 
the  number  of  vines  in  this  section  declined  appreciably,  largely  on 
account  of  low  prices  for  wine,  together  with  the  growing  unfavorable 
national  attitude  toward  alcoholic  beverages.  As  a  result,  the  number 
of  vines  in  the  Great  Lakes  states  has  exceeded  those  in  the  northern 
district  since  some  time  before  1920.  However,  because  of  uniformly 
higher  average  yields  per  vine  in  northern  California,  both  production 
and  shipments  of  this  district  since  1918  have  been  consistently  higher 
than  of  the  Great  Lakes  section. 


!o  See  table  2,  page  18,  for  estimates  made  by  the  California  Cooperative  Crop 
Eeporting  Service  and  the  map  in  figure  2  for  the  district  boundaries  used  in  this 
study.  See  also  footnote  14,  page  28,  for  a  list  of  the  chief  varieties  of  grapes 
included  in  each  of  the  three  classes — wine,  table,  and  raisin. 

The  boundaries  of  the  California  shipping  districts  employed  by  the  Bureau 
are  described  in  the  mimeographed  Summary  of  California  Grapes  for  1924  (U.  S. 
Bur.  Agr.  Econ.,  1925),  as  follows: 

"1.  (a)  The  northern  California  district  extends  northward  from  a  line  fol- 
lowing the  north  shore  of  the  Golden  Gate,  San  Pablo  Bay,  Carquinez  Straits, 
Suisun  Bay,  and  then  following  the  north  shore  of  the  San  Joaquin  Eiver  to 
Stockton,  including  Stockton;  thence  along  the  line  of  the  Southern  Pacific  Bail- 
way  to  Milton,  but  not  including  that  line;  thence  eastwardly  through  the  center 
of  Calaveras  County;  thence  along  the  western  and  northern  boundary  lines  of 
Alpine  County  to  the  Nevada  State  line. 

"(b)  Includes  originations  at  Oakland  pier  and  San  Francisco  Terminal. 

"2.  The  central  district  of  California  includes  the  territory  extending  south- 
ward from  the  line  described  in  paragraph  1,  except  Oakland  Pier  and  San  Fran- 
cisco Terminal,  to  a  southern  boundary  beginning  at  Santa  Barbara  along  an 
imaginary  line  to  Mojave  and  including  that  town;  thence  along  an  imaginary 
line  to  Mojave  and  including  that  town;  thence  along  an  imaginary  line  from 
Mojave  to  the  western  end  of  the  Slate  Eange,  along  that  range  of  mountains  to 
the  southern  boundary  of  Inyo  County;  thence  along  the  southern  boundary  of 
that  county  to  the  Nevada  state  line. 

"3.  The  southern  district  of  California  extends  southward  from  the  line  de- 
scribed in  paragraph  2,  taking  in  all  the  balance  of  the  state  with  the  exception 
of  that  portion  of  Imperial  County  south  of  an  imaginary  line  running  due  east 
and  west  through  Niland. 

"4.  The  Imperial  district  is  that  portion  of  Imperial  County  south  of  an 
imaginary  line  through  Niland,  and  includes  the  town  of  Niland. ' ' 


BUL.  429]  ECONOMIC   STATUS   OF   THE   GRAPE   INDUSTRY  17 

The  number  of  vines  in  this  district  declined  in  actual  numbers 
from  about  75  million  in  1910  to  49  million  in  1920  and  in  relative 
importance  the  number  declined  from  approximately  26  per  cent  of 
the  national  total  in  1910  to  about  19  per  cent  in  1920.  The  stimulus 
given  to  plantings  by  the  high  prices  for  wine  grapes  in  eastern 
markets  from  1919  to  1924  has  been  largely  responsible  for  the  in- 
crease in  the  number  of  vines  in  the  northern  district  from  49  million 
in  1920  to  over  65  million  in  1925.  Expansion  of  acreage  in  the  rest 
of  the  state,  and  particularly  in  central  California,  however,  was  so 
great  during  this  period  that  the  percentage  of  the  United  States  total 
number  of  vines  in  northern  California  declined  from  19  per  cent  in 
1920  to  17  per  cent  in  1925.  Somewhat  less  than  one-fourth  of  the 
vines  in  California  were  in  this  district  in  1925.  In  1926  nearly 
one-half  of  California's  wine-grape  acreage,  one-third  of  the  table- 
grape  acreage,  and  less  than  5  per  cent  of  the  raisin-grape  acreage 
of  the  state  was  in  the  northern  district. 

Great  Lakes  States  Are  Second  in  Vines  but  Third  in  Output. — 
Sometime  between  1910  and  1920  the  decreasing  acreage  of  wine 
grapes  in  northern  California  led  to  this  district  losing  its  rank  as  sec- 
ond in  number  of  vines  and  the  Great  Lakes  states  as  a  group  taking 
second  place.  The  increase  in  number  of  vines  in  these  states  since 
1920  relative  to  the  increase  in  northern  California  has  been  sufficient 
for  them  to  maintain  their  position  ahead  of  northern  California 
in  number  of  vines  ever  since  1920.  The  higher  yield  per  vine  in 
northern  California,  however,  has  enabled  this  district  since  1909  to 
produce  continuously  a  greater  tonnage  of  grapes  than  his  been 
produced  in  the  four  Great  Lakes  states.  Shipments  from  the  north- 
ern district  of  California  also  have  been  considerably  larger  in  volume 
since  1918  than  the  movement  from  the  Great  Lakes  states.  In  both 
1909  and  1919,  nearly  one-fourth  of  the  nation's  grape  vines  were 
in  the  Great  Lakes  district,  although  the  actual  number  declined 
about  5  million  during  this  interval.  Although  this  group  of  states 
has  had  an  increase  of  about  14  million  vines  between  1920  and  1925, 
its  proportion  of  the  United  States  total  fell  to  19  per  cent  by  1925. 
This  decline  in  percentage  was  caused  largely  by  the  extremely  rapid 
increase  in  plantings  in  the  central  district  of  California. 

Most  Rapid  Rate  of  Increase  in  Acreage  Has  Occurred  in  Southern 
California. — In  1925  the  southern  district  of  California,  including 
Imperial  Valley,  contained  something  over  6  per  cent  of  the  United 
States  total  number  of  grape  vines  and  less  than  10  per  cent  of  Cali- 
fornia's total  number  of  vines.  Of  the  state's  total  grape  acreage 
in  1926,  the  southern  district  contained  nearly  20  per  cent  of  the 


18 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


un 

•<* 

lO 

CO 

l> 

_, 

CO 

00 

>c 

CM 

OS 

>n 

o 

M 

oo 

__ 

a 

CO 

•o 

o 

ta 

^ 

N 

o 

e» 

o 

o 

o 

_ 

<j> 

CSOOCOlOCNOcOOO 

OOeONNCOOlHOlcONM 

CO    O             a    115    CD    m    H^ 
COOJCMOCOCDO'* 

cj 

t- 

UiCMOOCOCNrHCMOO 

N    113    O    ID    (N    00    tO    {O    IN    IN    H 

O 

H 

o 

COCNiOOOOCOCNCTi 
*M0OMWNNH 
^*     CM 

©  ■*  th*  1-*  i-T 

0»050t^rH030i»0 

oo 

CO 

*     115     CI     H     H 

bO 
J2 

<T> 

oso-h-^cocni'-© 

CO    CO    o 

CO    00    ^H 

»    ifl    lO 

t-i^ooo«oor^ 

ITS 

rHr^CNCNOiCDOO 

i-H      lO      ^H 

CD    CO 

tO    CM    CO 

OCM10CM003W3CM 

J 

w 

Tjl_   rH     CO_    CM    US     CN_    •>*    -* 

CO    »C    «5 

M    ^_    CO    CO    lO    Tjl    q    IN 

o 

cm 

M    CO    N             N*  IH    >H 

Cf    CM*    rH                                     rH 

b£ 

to 

e*»oiocooo!— ii— i  io 

COCO^OOU^OOOiOOiOiO 

h*i«OC»O10Ot« 
USI^lOt^lOCOOrH 

C 

CO 

rHrHrHCOCM-**<CO00 

-*ioc<it^T^i^co-Hco-Hcoco 

CM 

rHrHio->*<CO0000"HH 

IDOUJlONOffllOINNH 

COrHiO-T^OOrHOCM 

c 

CO 

coCT>co©io<-Hoa> 

o  co   n  h   h 

Ot^OOCOOOSOOiC 

pq 

irj 

IflNOOWNMOH 

^1      «J      rH      rH      rH 

to 

"*     <N 

00 

^lO^^olNMM 

■* 

CO 

e>»   o 

OS 

1H 

es 

OHClrtifllONO 

o  o 

t^.      : 

a 

00 

NMOOTllNiOOlOl 

C>«     00 

>o 

o 
H 

3 

e>jcMcorH<NrHrHoo 

to 

00 

NOOONrtHrtrt 

co 

.2 

co 

CO    rH 

03 

t- 

COOCMOiCOOicOO 

(M 

o 

co 

COOOOOOOiOOcO-* 

y-l 

"* 

os 

t- 

91    «J    lO             OO    «-H             <— I 

"• 

> 

£3 

N 

r-T 

a 

'S3 

'3 

-a 

Ph 

bli 

.s 

rHlOCNiOCOOOI^CM 

MJONmnmiiON 

"* 

lO 

o  o 
o»  o 

OS       : 

co       : 

t-    OO 

»o 

3 
pq 

N 

©rHCOrHCNrHrHOO 

u» 

00 

m 

NOOtONHHHH 

co 

CO     «H 

co 

eMOcoooasrHCNr^ 

C3 

o 

o  o  ■*  »o 

o  o 

o 

CO 

3S 

a» 

ooiOHrano^N 

iC 

»C    00    CO    o 

m   ■>* 

lO 

OO 

ccj 

U3 

NMOtO^^iOffi 

»o 

CM             rH     ti 

t-     05 

CO 

O 

T-T 

w   ■*   o   Tf   ^   oo  oo 

O     CO 

CM 

<D 

ITS 
rH 

00     CO    CM 

US    CO 

01 

bfl 

CO 

MOHIONMC<50 

lO 

a>  io 

CO    CO 

o 

OO 

"g 

CS 

OiOTfi— lO^OOiCO 

CM 

CM     CM 

co   co 

»o 

CO 

OJ_   t^     CO_            CO    CM    O    ^H 

00_     rH 

"-1 

£3 

C-" 

co"       »-T                  i-T 

rH     rH 

£ 

3 

hO 

bC 

o 

c~»o»ocoi^02CT>f~- 

o 

o 

iO    O    "5    o 

t-  t^ 

o 

CO 

CO 

a 

o 

ffiONoono^o 

«5 

f~ 

CM    CO    O    O0 

rH     O 

o 

OO 

CO 

C<1 

NlOtOtOHHTtlTtl 

lO 

CM             ^ 

o>    00 

o 

»o 

c3 
CD 

pq 

3 

iH    n    00    ■*    N    00    N 

00     CM 

CM 

00    CO    rH 

tJ<    co 

■># 

ooocoiraco»racoco 

CM1010OT-H0010O03OOU- 

OCMOOOcoOt^ 
OcOOTt<ioO»Oirs 

c- 

coiocoooicococo'Ocor-c 

co 

WNOJlOOHOOM 

CMaomiMooTtiiNrtHH 

t-rHCM05COOOt^- 

o 
H 

•«*' 

00    «5    H     ^l     00    CO    H 

O      CO      ■*      -H      -H 

Nmo^HHaw 

t- 

US    r* 

00     CM     CM             t-i 

CO 
CD 

rH 

bfi 

£3 

<T> 

c-ooooiornooo 

CO    CO    o 

CO    00    lO 

(35 

lO 

e^^HOooioocci 

es 

COINONONNO 

rH    »0    i-H 

CD     CO 

:    CM 

co 

CD05»CI^O>OlOO 

3 
> 

a 

■«H 

*   a  w  rt  »  oo  n   h 
t~T  rH~                  ,-T 

CO    lO     lO 

0_     CM      O      •*      iC5      Tfl      0_     rH 
t^"    rl     rH                                     rH 

rQ 

bD 

C 

ITS 

rHO00»O00-HH»OC0 

COOaiOOiOOOOOOlO"" 

)          t-0000000000 

tH 

tftOO>CM<NOCNlO 

■^OitMO^Hl^OCOCOCOCOO- 

3           ^tOiOMO'fO^ 

<3> 

©    OO    kC    >#     rH    CO     «0     <N 

tOCOiOlONCO^CNHHH 

«OOOiO-^00«OOCO 

3 

u 

»h"   CO    i-<    T»T    CD     CM*    rH 

05     CO     CO     »-H     t-I 

19    CO    O0    HI    o             OO    CO 

U>    rH 

C-     CM     rH                rH 

P3 

S^ 

"3  c 

-ri    CCS 

rH     CM    ifi    CO    t~    OO    O 

COCNCOCDOOrHCOOOCn.— icot-- 

CO      05      rH      CM      ->*<      lO      O 

HCNNINCNMCOCOM'I"'*^ 

*                                             rH     rH     rH     rH     CM 

02  2 

c 

a 

:     03 

r* 

(h 

o 

5 

c 

i 

s 

M 

•■3   e 

■a  i 

I* 

a 

2 

cc 

j 

.2 
« 
a 

1 

1 

C 

r< 

g 

r< 

Ill 

c 

t 

7 

i  i 

a  p: 

3    a 

JO 

>  O    a 

ill 

!  §| 

c 

•  ^ 
»>  3 

2  PQ 

\S   c 

3  S  E 

:     C 

;    a 

:     c 

I* 

•.      r 

5  a 

c 

j 

'5  .9 

o 

s 

'  6- 

:ij 

CO    r? 

■- 

a 

c 

p 

1 

s 
§ 

5 

j 

K 

u 

85 

Bul.  429] 


ECONOMIC   STATUS   OF   THE   GRAPE   INDUSTRY 


19 


la 
o 

H 

Hi 

O 

H 

03 
CM 

US 

u: 

BC 

CO 
CO 

US 

>o 

q 

<M 

O 

oo 

>o 

3 

oo 
00 
co 

o 
us 

CO 

US 

or 

01 

Ol 

CO. 

o 

50 

o 

C  1 

o 

U3 

o 

CO 

to 

CO 
IO 

us 

CO 

so 

CO 
CO 

CM 

CO 

C3> 
CM 
CO 
eo 

00 
CM 
CO 

co 

CO 

oo 

oo 

bC 

O)    O    N    115    O    H    115 

r-   us   en   t*i   o   t-   cm 

CO             ^h             -*<     CO    CM 

t-l    Tfl    US    o    o 

■*    CO     h     CO     N 

Ouscor^ot^cocM 

^tO-^cMooascocM 

»  co  w  h  ^  h  n 

^T   cm"                              i-H 

bC 
Pi 

cu 

pq 

OU5-**<OcNUSOUScOTtlirauScMOcOO©U5           ©OOUSUSOi-McNO 

lOOOOl^NiOOl^tOiOmeiNNnNH                    t.^O)H*MNO 

°.  ■*.  N.  "^  ®   ^  ^  ^   m   N   N   N   H                                       [•   »  o  w  n   h  •* 

■st<     CO    i— i     i— i                                                                                                                                       ft     IN    N    CD    tO    "5 

US     CO 

OB 

08 

> 

d 
'ffi 

"3 

"3 

o 

O      T* 

CXI    o 

"^  °- 

l-l     CO 

o  co 
ao   cm 

i-^  us 

(30    05 
CM     i-l 

us 
00 

N    OO    N    •* 
N    K    N    in 

91    CO    CO    CO 

io"  oi  co"  h" 

CO 

bC 

o  o 
co   io 

US 

US 

co 

e>*    cm   o   o 

a>   cm  co   ■* 

CO    CO 

bJD 
pj 

'(H 

o3 

pq 

o    •* 
us   us 

CO     CD 
t-4    Od" 

O     C35 

oo    co 

^H     CO 

OO     03 
CM      i-H 

CM 

o 

us 

©     CO     r^     T*H 

«  in  *   h 
us    co_  CO__  CO 
us"  oi"  co   1-T 

CO 

ao 

co 
> 

"3 

o 

h-i0050-^<UScOcM 
OeNCOOiOiCOOiO 

CN     CN     N     H     m     N               i-H 

Tf(      US 

US    (X) 

CM 

CM 

rlOOOOONlCOOO 
COCO'cHOOUSOOcOCM 
US     0_    CM     CM_    CO     t~-     00 
US*   CO     CM    us"            CO 

<<   CD 

us 

o  o  o 

i-H       i-H      CO 

US 
CM 

eo   t^  o  t^  ex)  co   co 
co   r>-   oo   oo   us   o   co 

US_   CO     i-l                      US    CO 

bO 
C 

pq 

omcso'fiocoiM 

lONMCSOOCNCOO 
O    IN    N    H    N    H              ^h 

US     CO 

CM 

CM 

WNOH^ONO 
OICOcOOOJNNIN 
8>    CO     O    CN     CN     IN    ■* 
OS    cm"   CM    us"           CO 

en 

"S 

> 

la 

o 

INcOt^USOOi— li-H'^'^-'i'OUSOOUSOOUS           C-    1^    i— l 

•^O'^'-iusosostMOcocooousr-.T-Hesji— i              n   m   cm 

NMNCNHN^M^rnHNH                                                       ^   "i    '* 
1-4"            i-H                                                                                                                                                 M    CN    cm" 

CO     CM 

t-   o 

t^    CO 

-*     CO_ 
co"    ^h" 

CM 

CO 

bD 

CM 

CM    US     CT>    i— 1    US 

Ol    ^    C5    CO    Ol 
.-1               r-l     CM     ^H 

^H     •<*!     US     O     O 
-*    CO     US     CO     CM 

O     CM    CO 

eo   -^   co 
00    co    ^h 

CM     ^H 

CM      02 

Tf      CO 

CM 

CM 

WO 

.9 

S3 
0) 

pq 

©OUSOCT5©CO->cHCOOU5iOO©USOOUS           t-    US    00 

lOOusr^.-HcoaicNcoocNcNcor^^HcM'-H               ^   «   oo 

m    TO    if)     H             lONMCCNrtCNH                                                       N     CS     IN 
^            -^                                                                                                                                     ©~  ©"   CM* 

PS     CM 

US     C3S 

us   co 

cq  a> 

CO 

O 

^H-*iot-~a>o<N"*f»ocor^ocNU3coooCT>o              •♦   co  n  ce  c»   h   Tt 

*3 

EJ 
§ 
o 

05 

r 

P 
> 

C 
P 
B 

tz 

c 

p 

1= 
p 

c 

■fc 

B 
B 
1 

I 

i 

- 

i 

S 

)    H 

:  c 

•1 

i      0! 

p 

1 

a 
T 
c 

| 

IS 

5 

il 

5  a 

e 

1  T 

B 

|  E 

is 

c 

■  i- 

r 

1 

;  1 

c 
p 

8 

g 

1 

e 

p 
tx 

1  ^ 
B 

P 

j 

c 

% 

'I 

a 

c  -z 

1 

PC 

c 
t 

P 

c 
t 

s 

1 

c 

i 

i 

20  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

wine  grapes,  10  per  cent  of  the  table  grapes,  and  slightly  less  than 
5  per  cent  of  the  raisin  grapes.  Acreage  in  southern  California 
since  1920  has  more  than  doubled,  showing  a  greater  rate  of  increase 
than  either  central  or  northern  California.  Imperial  Valley,  the 
earliest  producing  section  of  California,  has  increased  its  acreage 
more  rapidly  since  1920  than  any  other  section  of  the  country,  with 
the  exception  of  Arizona.11  The  number  of  vines  in  each  of  these 
sections  was  about  seven  times  as  great  in  1925  as  in  1920. 

California  Bearing  Acreage  by  Class  and  County,  1926. — The  only 
available  data  which  can  be  used  as  an  index  of  California's  county 
grape  output  for  each  class  of  grapes  are  annual  estimates  of  bearing 
acreage  made  by  the  California  Crop  Reporting  Service.  Figure  3 
pictures  the  1926  data  separately  for  the  20  counties  which  contain 
nearly  96  per  cent  of  California's  total  of  653,000  bearing  acres.  The 
three  outstanding  counties — Fresno,  Tulare,  and  San  Joaquin — con- 
tain over  55  per  cent  of  the  total  state  acreage  of  bearing  vines  of  all 
varieties.  Fresno  alone  has  35  per  cent,  or  229,000  acres.  The  two 
counties,  Fresno  and  Tulare,  contain  nearly  70  per  cent  of  the  total 
raisin  acreage.  These  two,  plus  San  Joaquin,  lay  claim  to  nearly  60 
per  cent  of  the  table-grape  acreage.  San  Joaquin  County  has  the 
largest  wine-grape  acreage,  followed  by  San  Bernardino,  with  Sonoma 
a  close  third.  Except  for  wine  grapes,  it  is  evident  that  the  San  Joa- 
quin Valley  is  the  commercial  grape-producing  district  of  California. 
It  should  be  added  that  the  rank  of  only  two  of  these  counties  is 
changed,  and  then  but  slightly,  if  the  total  of  both  bearing  and  non- 
bearing  acreage  is  considered  instead  of  the  bearing  acreage  only, 
which  is  pictured  in  this  chart. 

Washington. — Although  still  relatively  unimportant  in  total  out- 
put, the  grape  industry  of  Washington  has  expanded  at  a  rapid  rate 
since  the  war.  The  number  of  vines  doubled  from  1919  to  1924,  and 
carlot  shipments,  the  majority  of  which  move  in  September,  increased 
from  less  than  40  in  1919  to  over  190  in  1925.  Practically  all  of 
Washington's  commercial  grape  output  is  of  the  labrusca  type  of 
eastern  grape,  and  some  of  it  has  been  pressed  on  a  commercial  scale 
for  unfermented  grape  juice  in  the  last  year  or  so. 

Most  Rapid  Eastern  Expansion  in  the  Ozarks. — East  of  the  Rocky 
Mountains  the  most  rapid  rate  of  expansion  in  the  grape  industry  has 
taken  place  in  the  group  of  central  western  states  of  Arkansas,  Mis- 
souri, Kansas,  Illinois,  and  Iowa.  The  total  number  of  vines  in  these 
states  nearly  doubled  between  1920  and  1925,  increasing  from  about 


11  For  the  approximate  acreage  of  grapes  and  number  of  vines  in  Arizona  in 
1920  and  1925  see  page  11. 


Bul.  421 


ECONOMIC   STATUS   OF   THE   GRAPE   INDUSTRY 


21 


eight  and  one-half  to  around  sixteen  million.  In  the  last  three  years, 
however,  shipments  have  averaged  over  seven  times  the  average  for 
1919-1921. 

The  most  rapid  expansion  in  acreage  within  this  section  has 
occurred  in  the  Ozark  Mountain  region  in  southwestern  Missouri  and, 
particularly,  in  northwestern  Arkansas.  Grapes  have  been  planted 
extensively  in  practically  all  the  places  in  the  Ozark  region  where 


Beor/ng  Acres  of  Oropes  //?  Ca//forn/o  by  C/oss  t  County ',  /9Z6. 

fOOO       .  ■                                                                            Thousanc/s     o-P    Acres 

Acnes    /O  J?ank                       q                            qq                          /0q                          j50                         zoo                       250 

1                          1                          1                          1 

ZZ9 

84 
57 

Ml 
IZ3 
8.8 

l 

z 

3 

rresno 
Ta/are 
S.Joaquin 

^K^W*ws«^ 

x&m                      i 

^—MMtm 

m 

33 
30 
ZJb 
ZZ 

51 
4.7 
3.9 
3.3 

4 
5 
& 
7 

S.Berdino 

Madera 

Stanislaus 

Merced 

KJ           1 

■sa    i 

Ba   i 

Zl 

3Z 

8 

Kern 

t&i   i 

is 

3.0 

9 

Kings 

EZD 

19 

23 

10 

Sonoma 

16 

ZJ 

II 

Sac  '-ho 

gsa 

II 

1.7 

IZ 

Napa 

10 
9 
8 

IS 
1.4 
I.Z 

13 

14 
15 

5.  Clara 

Sutter 

Mendocino 

=1 

Wine   —  | 
Pa/sin  —  I           I 
Table    —  K^R»J 

8 

I.Z 

16 

5.  Diego 

El 

7 

1.0 

17 

Imperial 

SI 

6 

1.0 

18 

L.Angeles 

■ 

5 

0.8 

/9 

P/ocer 

1 

5 

03 

ZO 

Riverside 

a 

Z8 
§53 

4.Z 
100.0 

Others 

■HD 

Total 

Fig.  3. — Three  counties — Fresno,  Tulare,  and  San  Joaquin — contain  over  55 
per  cent  of  California's  bearing  grape  acreage.  Fresno  leads  all  counties  in  raisin 
and  table-grape  acreage.  San  Joaquin  is  first  in  wine-grape  acreage  and  a  close 
second  in  table  grapes.     (Data  compiled  from  table  2,  p.  18.) 

strawberries  have  been,  and  are  being,  grown  on  a  commercial  scale. 
The  number  of  vines  in  the  state  of  Missouri  in  1925  was  nearly  double 
that  of  1920  and  Arkansas'  acreage  multiplied  six  times  in  this  five- 
year  period.  Because  much  of  the  planting  in  these  central  western 
states  has  been  made  since  1920,  about  one-half  of  the  vineyard  acreage 
is  only  a  few  years  old  at  the  present  time.12 


12  T.  J.  Talbert,  of  the  University  of  Missouri,  states  that  since  the  advent  of 
prohibition,  grape  growing  in  Missouri  and  Arkansas  has  expanded  rapidly, 
especially  in  about  a  dozen  counties  in  the  Ozark  section  of  southwestern  Missouri 
and  in  the  region  adjoining  Lonetown  and  Altus  in  the  Ozark  section  of  north- 


22 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


PRODUCTION 

California  Output  Compared  with  that  of  AH  Other  States,  1922- 
1925. — The  fact  that  both  production  and.  shipments  of  California 
grapes  dominate  the  viticultural  industry  of  the  United  States  is 
strikingly  pictured  in  figure  5.  In  the  four  years  1922-1925,  the 
United  States  produced  on  an  average  about  two  million  tons  of 
grapes  each  year.     California   alone   produced   1.8  million  tons,   or 


^F 

GRAPE  PRODUCTION 

\fc=£ 

Li* 

1919 

~^~~Js 

^\ 

s*--$r 

~J     \ 

f         i 

\      *■     / 

/       ^~T- 

_J_~ 

^tt^3*^"*^ff 

y§ 

Ti       "v  J    ' 

n~^r\^  ^J 

M 

J        ^ 

Ui'Qi 

\\fc 

fcj             ■*                   / 

j\               mL^^~ 

-&&/ 

jf 

1     '■ :.'*^ 

W    ■:      7- 

_ j      .-..          r     \ 

I         f 

STATS       LBS 

STATE         LBS 

Calif  2105564*612 
NY         ISZ482698 
Mich      /I5.87/16S 
Pa            4Z68I.09O 
Ohio          4/.72Z796 
loo/a         /Z/65J/8 

Mo              10.94  9.6  02 
iVC            IO.679.l08 
III                IOJ390I8 
Ind              6  6/2.604 
Orher      6433  Z350 

\        ~jT      EACH  DOT  REPRESENTS     \ 
\1                 50.000  POUNDS 

US      2.5/3,680.861 

** 

Fig.  4. — The  three  chief  sections  of  commercial  grape  production  in  the  United 
States  are:  (1)  California;  (2)  the  Great  Lakes  section,  embracing  certain  parts 
of  New  York,  Pennsylvania,  Ohio,  and  Michigan;  and  (3)  the  Central  Western 
section,  comprising  rather  localized  areas  in  Missouri,  Arkansas,  Illinois,  Iowa, 
and  Kansas.     (Eeproduced  from  U.  S.  Dept.  Agriculture  Yearbook  1925,  p.  281.) 

almost  90  per  cent  of  this  enormous  total.  The  rest  of  the  United 
States  produced  235,000  tons,  two-thirds  of  which  came  from  the  four 
Great  Lakes  states — New  York,  Michigan,  Pennsylvania,  and  Ohio. 
Approximately  one-half  of  California's  total  grape  tonnage  was  dried 


western  Arkansas.  Writing  in  the  spring  of  1924,  he  states  that  ' '  There  are  now 
more  than  5,000  acres  planted  to  grapes  ....  in  southwest  Missouri,  but  only  a 
small  part  of  this  acreage  has  reached  bearing  age There  are  only  two  varie- 
ties being  grown  commercially  in  the  Ozark  region,  ....  Concord  and  Moore's 
Early.  Perhaps  90  per  cent  of  the  acreage  is  Concord."  In  the  spring  of  1925 
lie  states  that  the  established  area  in  grapes  in  southwestern  Missouri  is  at  present 
between  7,000  and  10,000  acres.  (American  Fruit  Growers'  Magazine  447:7. 
July,  1924.)  See  also  article  by  same  author  on  Grapes  in  Missouri  in  the  Cali- 
fornia Grape  Grower  4^:  4.  May  1,  1923;  Cooper,  J.  E.  (of  the  University  of 
Arkansas)  Grape  Growing  in  the  Ozarks,  American  Fruit  Growers'  Magazine 
457:  5,  11.  July,  1925;  and  T.  J.  Maney,  Grape  Production  and  Distribution  in 
Western  Iowa.  '  Iowa  Agr.  Exp.  Sta.  Bui.  199',  1921. 


Bul.  429] 


ECONOMIC   STATUS   OF   THE   GRAPE   INDUSTRY 


23 


as  raisins  during  the  four  years  under  consideration,  which  accounts 
for  the  state's  shipments  of  fresh  grapes  being  smaller  in  proportion 
to  production  than  are  shipments  from  the  rest  of  the  United  States. 
Aside  from  California,  the  Great  Lakes  states  mentioned  are  the  only 
ones  whose  individual  output  has  averaged  1  per  cent  or  more  of  the 
United  States  total  crop  in  recent  years.  The  annual  average  tonnage 
shipped  fresh  during  this  period  was  over  890,000  tons,  constituting 
nearly  45  per  cent  of  the  total  tonnage,  on  a  fresh  basis,  produced 
within  the  state.  Fresh-grape  shipments  from  the  rest  of  the  country 
amounted  to  only  124,000  tons,  constituting  slightly  less  than  15  per 
cent  of  the  total  carlot  movement  of  the  United  States  as  a  whole. 


Production  *-  Shipments  erf  Orapes,  California  Compared  with 
Ail  Other  5tates,  Average  /9ZZ  -&Z5. 


Per-  lOOO 
Cent  Tons 

(OP   1985  Pnoducf/on 


39 

1772         California.  -*- 

II 

Z/3         Other-  Statas 

IOO 

89/  Shipments 

14      IZ4        Other  States 


;^^W^^^J      Brie*  as  Batons -877.       \ 

V//////////////A 

■ 

500  /OOO 

Thaasanafs    of 


Tans 


ZOOO 


Fig.  5. — Of  the  United  States'  total  production  of  nearly  two  million  tons  of 
grapes  in  recent  years,  California  has  produced  almost  90  per  cent,  drying  approxi- 
mately one-half  for  raisins.  California  fresh-grape  shipments  were  over  85  per 
cent  of  the  United  States  movement.     (Data  from  tables  3  and  6,  pp.  24  and  38.) 


California  Output  Much  Greater  Than  All  Other  States. — The 
left-hand  portion  of  figure  6  enables  one  to  compare  both  California's 
total  grape  production  and  her  total  fresh-grape  shipments  with  the 
rest  of  the  United  States  for  the  years  1917  through  1926.  In  general 
it  shows  that  California's  output  of  grapes  has  never  been  less  than 
six  times  as  great  as  the  total  production  of  all  other  states  combined. 
In  some  years  it  has  been  more  than  ten  times  as  great.  The  relative 
flatness  of  the  curves  showing  production  and  shipments  of  all  other 
states  than  California,  shown  near  the  bottom  of  the  chart,  indicates 
no  tendency  in  recent  years  toward  any  noticeable  increase  in  the 
total  commercial  output  of  these  states.  The  very  evident  increase 
in  California's  production  and  shipments,  pictured  in  the  two  upper 
curves,  are  in  marked  contrast  to  the  continued  small  output  of  the 
rest  of  the  United  States. 


24 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


_^ 

bfl 
o3 
U 

> 

03 

^p  0 

O 

(0 

00 

00 

tHOOCOCOO^iHOOOOOi-I 

(H  0 

e 

»HtOCOOOCOtOCOO^H>Cil^.O» 

§ 

^»it-i-l©OOOOtOt^©co^H-'t<0 

toes»oocc>ooo«5oooiioaj^ji 

to 

w 

0 

*00O)O100H[»00»'**N00 
M    O    N    *    H    «    N                                             co 

e«»  ih 

o> 

P 

s 

ci 

*■■ 

t- 

§ 

t-ooooo^oococooco 

rHiHOO-HOt£)OOOCO>00^< 

1-H 

o 

»H 

*HOOI^CT>,-<^Hi-IOO©>0©t~l-l 

CO 

en 

o> 

s" 

cni-iooioaieocococococoirt 

•** 

ONOOMC44HH                           ■«»« 

« 

© 

»      N      H 

e^ 

N 

1A 

Si 

c 

omoooocDTHOOOioo'* 

00 

c 

ooot—  ->*oooio»hooocO'— 1© 

OOOOOOr^^Ht^iHcO-*COOOCOiH 

>o 

O 

0  c 

a 

CO 

2 

e>«    c^ 

« 

U)    N   »    H    N    r- tcoor^->*<cocococo 
oommuicO'H'-ic^                                   eo 

o»_  ■<* 

* 

e>« 

*-T   r- 

e>» 

s 

esooooocooooooioen 

g 

es;ioooiooeo-<tio©uoco*J< 

c-T-ioor^-^ticooooaitoose* 

>* 

0 

CO 

02 

00 

«J    OO    OOCOH    MM                                             CO 

f; 

U» 

e<i   ih 

us 

O 

mtoooo»o«#oo^oo«o 

enmoooomocoa>-*iOT»i 

2 

i 

co 

« 

C000OO>OC0O©O5-<tlO5t^T»l 

CO 

t- 

s 

[«HNT|HtOOliHCO             U5    ifl    N    ^ 

co 

0>^J<CO-^^HrtC>)                                             o» 

es 

0 

*H     »-l 

w 

e* 

^ 

s 

"rHOOOOO^OOOO^t- 
C-lrtOiOOO«>OOt^OOO»H 

c 

t- 

0 

iH 

0 

tH    c^  o_  t^  o_  «o    00_  CO    C0_  CO    10^  co_  »-<_ 

CO 

to 

u»    0    io"  co"  10"   CO*"  TlT  N    H    to    (O    CO*  «* 

fl 

00 

© 

[•    rt    O    tO    (N    IN    M                                                 CO 

en 

t^ 

cq   es    r-i 

a 

r- 

«■*" 

•2 

© 

0 

©   0   0 

0 

s 

0 

© 

CO   to   0 

t- 

3 

e 

0  >*  0 

°1 

CO 

CO 

T3 

co 

8 

e4~  CO    CO 

CO 

uf 

O 

*h 

rt   [•  ra 

»H 

CO 

e< 

*H 

Ph 

»- 

t-T 

0 

0 

©   ©   0 

O 

0 

t» 

0 

t-     rH     O 

2 

CO 

0 

0 

0 

P.  *"!  °- 

CO 

CO 

02 

w 

00 

©    Ift    lO 

m  e»  00 

©" 

^r 

<2 

B- 

CO 

CO 

1* 

1 

C«     »H 

*-*" 

00 

O    C 

c 

ooocn—iOrt-Hirtiocooco^^ 

en 

ss 

c 

OOt--^CO-*<OOt^COt-~OOiOiH 

coiococooicoooto-'*<coi-io<oto 

02 

ir 

U" 

02 

s 

0  » 

r~ 

io©tecot^'— io©»o-hioococo 

CO    cv 

0- 

<©coc-t^iococoeo                                     00 

tf 

eo   cr 

CS     tH 

© 

0 

S  8 

0 

0 

00 

s 

s 

£ 

CO 

03 

or 
c< 

i-T 

o»  to 

CO     O 

Tjl 

s 

t- 

i 

0  0 
00  «* 
0  o> 

0 

3 

T* 

3 

8  3 

t^" 

CO 

0 

0  c 

C 

O©00C000©t~-t-COt^>— l-*t<Ot>m 

oe?»e^o-*'-icooocooi02io>oe^ 

oieooionoojisojiNiNooHii) 

en 

0  c 

0   oc 

c 

05 

u 

e> 

0 

« 

00    1- 

1-. 

a2iou»tooi^-Ht-oo'Hooioco« 

ir 

10   a 

c 

00  ^ 

V 

cfl  e*  '-1 

to 

5 

I 

a 

3 

'    1 
I 

* 

*? 
j- 

c 

a 

c 

t 

f/ 
T 

C 

t. 

a 

1 

V 

t 
t 

e 

a 
X 

I 

c3 

•3  M 

0  I 

to    +, 
to  C 

1- 

E 

c 

s 

1  i 

c 
c 

■> 

.c 
X 

C 

1 
S 

to 

«    .r 

^  i 

■a  i 

pi  ? 

a> 

O 

1 

pit 

j 

s 

c 

0 
I 

0] 

a 
ci 

■ 

1 

0 

i§ 

"3 

5 

Bul.  429 


ECONOMIC   STATUS   OF   THE   GRAPE   INDUSTRY 


25 


^ 

1 

m 
So 

3co'„_ 

o3 
03 

«««  -^ 

(1,    O 

1 

CM 

a> 

"71 

3 

00     03     CO     f     -^ 

<M 

<«l      H      H     Ifl      N 
IH      —1      t-H      .-H      t-H 

Oi 

"H 

# 

CO 

10    t—   0   CO   »o 

CM 

<C 

co   w  10   n  <* 

OS 

tH 

1- 1     —H     r-H     (M     1— 1 

>o 

to  t»  t^.  *-i  t*. 

CM 

-«J 

10    r^   co   ^h    0 

CT2 

■** 

T* 

•"*!     CO     T»<     00     0 

CM 

^ 

IN    CN     CM    H     N 

OS 

CO 

s 

IO     O     CO     CO     -H 

IM 

CO     O     OS     I— 1     i—l 

02 

CD 
faC 

o3 

03 

eq 

o3 

00 

C»    CO    CO    N     O 

CM 

c 

CO    CO    ^    CO    i-l 

OJ 

CM 

OS 

02 

Irt 

O    N    O    CO    H 

O 

00 

00    10     10    N    0O 

OS 

a 

0 

O 

s 

M    N    M    CO    H 

CM 

O    CM    CO    i-c    -H 

C2 

OS 

Ol 

OO    N     C9    •*    OO 

c 

O^—i^O 

02 

00 

CM 

CO     rt     K5     CN     H 

Ol 

Ol    N    CO    OO    O) 

1-1 

CM     t^     CO     05    ^*l 

0   o>   00   00  0 

C 

iH 

.-1                        .— 1 

05 

O     O    CM     CM     CO 

2 

a 

N    10    10    »0    CO 

0 

'S 

O 

03 
03 

3 

c 

' 

M^       CO     ■*> 

-h       0)      CO 

0  2  £  " 

+s    02    03    0, 
3     «3     OT     o3 

* 

C 

fa. 

O      03      CD     +2 

5 

O        ^3      +3       (H      +3 

Si     w     cc3    -£     O 

a 

"3  —■   *   G  — 

ci   "3     s-     cu   ~3 

P 

c 

< 

c 

c 

< 

-p*3   . 

sl-s 

00.2 

Ss  » 

>-"  55    A3 
C3  •*-!    CJ 

o-o  g 

<i  ..s 
o>  ~3 

05 -C  3  •• 

^  £  O  <£ 

"£    03  =->    £ 

JtK  03    £ 

|-|.s  S 

y>ha 


03    £ 

o 


I    ffltj'-P    l<    lip 
"E— '   03   o3   O   O   r*   CI 

<5^  S  "3  a)  ■£  o  £ 

.-Soj£,-,0*J03 
ujJ  >  fc I  o3  ft-3^ 

.       o  2  n  ai  S  5" 

-3S£:2jtf|a 
o^5  b^  3  03  >, 

a?  03  3.£"o3  a  cm  2 

1-1  "£"'       -   dj?02-j5 

03*3  o3  JR-3     ._,  O 
3    g    03    03    >_OJ-gg 

O    "3      .  „,  S  CM    03 

.    ^^^     C0^2§ 

^   C   MmS   S-S   03 

Z%<  g^  c3  a  a 

fl-flS^Spflg 
i^S  fl-2ft£  § 

W    O  -£    43  "g    03    oj^ 

*a  03  5  &^  Q  a  <& 


*0 

iif 

Ills 

*D  43    03    O 

ci  ^  til 
•2ft§S 

CJ    O    03    03 
■OO^    03 


1111 

2  2^ 
^5  n.S 


ft  03  tD. 


ft  o  O    I 

«^m2 

-    A  03  03.03  jj 

-d  03-2  s^S  {- 

lull's  il 

3§1^|ft. 

-S'-^CDOSoCf- 

-3°ftfl  §8  > 
>3ooflij2t; 

g^'lftfe^MQ 

sJ->^ft^° 


•    £    03    «S^    <h 


.is 


cTQ 

.  &13  ay   :  ci  b 

^  C^g  03  o  C  a  r3 
<«-^3o3jc|o3«ft 

O     03  " 


toS  cc_ 
ft-273  03 

3     3     03     3 

o  ft  S  ci 
o  03  a 


2  g.^^ 


oj  £  ^' 
"E  03  3  o 


+J  +»    03 
p^5    M  03 

rG"^     03     rt 

c3J°° 

O  03  cuT* 
-,  03-5  O 
o3'3  ^"^ 
3  S  ° 

<I     fttc 


s 

Og   03   o 

03  03  £  tn."  o  -^ 

S.^    2°«    03^    « 

^    03^    O-rt    ^  .      03 

t»co«iflfe  fc«„J3o 
.i-H    03    03    ft  tJpU 


•-  m  ps  5?S 

fed  03     '^  ,_l    03    b 


H     02     b  2 

^  S  d  o  fe-3 
S3  s-HS  •S4" 
gggftS^cs.S 
«t!  "  »h  -3  «  a  +?t-! 


O^  ^-*    0)    k*-»05 


2  3 


^Fh*3 


-0M    03 


->Hd 


rr  ••  cu  oo 

.PtO-H 


2oS 


2§|^3.2 

03  °°  T-j  ^  '*H  ,3    Q,  CJ    CJ 

S  a  *5  03  "-  3  tjT-O  Q 

K.    .-  Pi  t<    03-«CM    O^ 

a  Sx2   - fl^  ft  • 

^I§£oci2! 

3  S  S  0.3  5£oo^ 


26 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


suoj_     J-O     spuosnoifj_ 


BUL.  429]        ECONOMIC  STATUS  OF  THE  GRAPE  INDUSTRY  27 

Rapid  Rate  of  California's  Increase. — The  right  half  of  figure  6 
pictures  the  comparative  rate  of  change  in  grape  production  and  ship- 
ments for  both  California  and  the  rest  of  the  United  States  as  a  whole. 
Exactly  the  same  figures  were  used  to  make  this  portion  of  the  chart 
as  were  used  in  the  left  half.  In  the  right  half,  however,  the  data 
have  been  plotted  on  semi-logarithmic  paper  which  has  been  used  in 
order  to  bring  out  differences  in  percentage  rates  of  change.  The 
emphasis  in  this  title  should  be  on  the  words  change  and  rate,  for 
the  chart  is  designed  to  show  the  relative  or  proportional  changes  for 
the  whole  period,  and  from  one  year  to  the  next.  The  scale  or  equal 
vertical  distances  on  the  left  half  of  the  chart,  as  already  pointed 
out,  shows  the  absolute  tonnage  only.  Equal  vertical  distances  on  the 
semi-logarithmic  paper,  although  numbered  as  actual  tons,  show  equal 
percentage  changes.13  Equal  percentage  increases  over  a  series  of 
years,  when  plotted  on  semi-logarithmic  paper,  are  shown  as  a  straight 
line.  This  fact  is  well  illustrated  in  the  right-hand  curve  of  California 
grape  shipments  from  1917  to  1925.  During  this  period  shipments 
were  increasing  at  an  average  rate  of  about  20  per  cent  from  one  year 
to  the  next.  The  steepness  of  the  curve  indicates  the  very  rapid 
growth  in  the  commercial  movement  of  fresh  grapes  from  California 
in  the  last  ten  years. 

Violent  and  Frequent  Changes  in  Eastern  Yields  per  Acre. — For 
some  purposes  it  is  very  important  to  picture  as  equal,  the  same  per- 
centage changes,  regardless  of  the  absolute  amount  of  the  change. 
Even  though  the  grape  output  of  the  east  is  not  nearly  as  large  as 
California's,  the  violent  percentage  increases  or  decreases  which  fre- 
quently occur  in  eastern  production  from  one  year  to  another  are  a 
bad  sign,  even  though  the  difference  amounts  only  to  150,000  tons. 
With  the  slight  increase  in  the  bearing  acreage  of  eastern  grapes  from 
year  to  year,  it  is  obvious  that  an  increased  production  of  100  per  cent 
in  a  single  year  means  that  the  yield  per  acre  has  doubled.  Large  and 
frequent  percentage  changes  such  as  are  here  shown  to  be  occurring 
in  eastern  grape  production  indicate  that  the  industry  is  unstable. 
No  doubt  the  risks  and  uncertainty  of  income,  occasioned  by  these 
frequent  and  violent  changes  in  yield  per  acre,  are  an  important 
factor  in  explaining  why  grape  production  in  most  states  other  than 
California  has  shown  but  slight  tendency  to  increase. 


is  To  illustrate:  It  is  obvious  that  200  is  twice  as  great  as  100;  in  other  words, 
200  is  100  per  cent  greater  than  100.  Likewise,  400  is  twice  as  great  as  200; 
or,  in  other  words,  400  is  100  per  cent  greater  than  200.  Measuring  the  distance 
from  100  to  200  on  the  scale  of  this  chart,  it  is  found  to  be  exactly  the  same  as 
the  distance  from  200  to  400.  Equal  distances  on  the  scale  correspond  to  equal 
percentage  changes,  and  not,  as  in  the  left  hand  chart,  to  equal  differences  in  the 
absolute  number  of  tons. 


28  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

Bate  of  Change  in  California  Grape  Production  by  Classes,  1899- 
1926. 14 — Figure  7  pictures  the  rate  of  change  in  California's  produc- 
tion of  table  grapes,  raisin  grapes,  and  wine  grapes  for  the  last  27 
years.  The  curves  are  drawn  on  the  semi-logarithmic  scale  in  order 
to  bring  out  differences  in  the  rates  of  increase  in  production  of  the 
different  classes  of  grapes.  The  extremely  rapid  rate  of  increase  in 
table-grape  production  is  shown  by  the  steepness  of  the  bottom 
curve  in  comparison  with  the  other  curves.  Twenty-seven  years  ago 
California  produced  only  13,000  tons  of  table  grapes.  In  1926  her 
output  was  about  400,000  tons,  or  over  30  times  the  production  of 
1899. 

The  rate  of  increase  in  the  production  of  raisin  grapes  has  not 
been  as  rapid  as  table-grape  expansion,  and  hence  the  raisin  curve 
is  not  as  steep  as  the  table-grape  curve.  The  raisin-grape  production 
of  the  state  was  about  160,000  tons  27  years  ago.  It  was  over  1,200,000 
tons  in  1926.  Had  all  the  1926  tonnage  been  dried,  the  raisin  output 
would  have  been  300,000  tons,  or  seven  and  one-half  times  the  1899 
output  of  40,000  tons  on  a  dried  basis.  Prior  to  1915,  raisin-grape 
production  in  the  state  was  smaller  than  the  wine-grape  output,  but 
since  that  date  has  been  greater  than  either  wine  or  table-grape  pro- 
duction. 

Wine  grapes  are  the  only  class  of  grapes  in  the  state  which  have 
not  shown  a  steady  and  continuous  upward  trend  in  production 
throughout  the  entire  period  from  1899  to  date.  Political  changes  in 
regard  to  taxation  of  the  wine  industry  and  prohibition  have  made 


14  The  three  classes  of  grapes — wine,  table,  and  raisin — used  throughout  this 
bulletin  are  those  most  generally  recognized  in  the  state,  and  those  employed  by 
the  California  Cooperative  Crop  Keporting  Service,  which,  when  first  using  them 
stated  that  "the  different  varieties  of  grapes  have  been  arbitrarily  arranged  by 
classes  in  accordance  with  their  general  use  [for  many  years]  rather  than  by 
considering  the  methods  of  disposal  during  recent  seasons.  That  is,  recognized 
raisin  varieties  such  as  Muscats,  Thompson  Seedless  (Sultanina),  and  Sultanas  are 
placed  exclusively  in  the  raisin-grape  class  whether  or  not  the  crop  would  be  used 
for  raisin,  table,  or  juice  purposes.  Strictly  wine-grape  varieties  are  included 
in  the  wine-grape  class  whether  or  not  they  were  shipped  fresh,  pressed,  or  made 
into  dried  grapes."  (California  Crop  Eeport  for  1923,  Calif.  Dept.  Agr.  Spec. 
Pub.  43:16.     1924.) 

The  chief  varieties  included  in  the  table  class  are  Malaga,  Tokay,  Emperor, 
and  Cornichon.  Thompson  Seedless,  Muscat,  and  Sultana  constitute  the  bulk  of 
the  raisin-grape  class.  The  chief  varieties  in  the  wine-grape  class  in  their  approxi- 
mate order  of  commercial  importance  are  Zinfandel,  Alicante  Bouschet,  Carignane, 
Mission,  Mataro,  and  Petite  Sirah.  In  the  fresh  state  the  raisin  grapes,  particu- 
larly the  Thompson  Seedless  variety,  are  used  to  a  limited  extent  for  table  use 
or  as  table  stoclc.  Likewise  of  this  class  of  grapes,  the  Muscat  variety,  especially, 
has  been  used  on  a  large  scale  in  recent  years  for  making  wine  or  as  juice  stock, 
according  to  the  popular  designation  of  grapes  designed  for,  or  probably  con- 
verted into,  wine.  Table  grapes,  but  chiefly  the  Malaga,  are  used  to  a  consider- 
able extent  as  juice  stock. 


Bul.  429] 


ECONOMIC  STATUS  OF  THE  GRAPE  INDUSTRY 


29 


the  future  of  the  industry  very  uncertain  for  the  last  twenty  years, 
if  not  longer.  Largely  because  of  the  great  risks  attendant  upon  being 
a  political  football,  the  wine-grape  output  of  the  state  began  to 
decrease  after  1911,  and  at  no  time  since  has  production  been  as  large 
as  the  crop  of  considerably  over  500,000  tons  in  that  year. 

To  summarize:   In  the  last  twenty-five  years   California's  total 
output  of  grapes  increased  four  times;   raisin  grapes  considerably 


California  Grope  Production  by  Variety  Classes,    1399  -io  I9Z6 

IOOO 

7b- 

<-al 

< 

A 

\ 
— * 

/ 

^x 

IOOO 
900 
800 
700 
600 
500 

400 
300 

ZOO 

100 
90 
80 
70 
00 
50 
40 
30 

zo 

90O 

/ 

— \ 

V— 

700 

eoo 

500 
400 
300 

j8  zoo 

\ 

"§  too 
c;    90 

\  BO 

3     TO 

^    60 

^    50 

CO 

30 

RO 
IO 

. 

», 

/ 

Wine , 

• 

*> 

^ 

y 

x 

x 

Nfc 

r'- 

.' 

— i 

V 

/ 

\ 

s^ 

/ 

■«•. 

v 

*? 

i 

<— •' 

\ 

,* 

** 

/ 

/ 

/ 

>  \ 

/ 

s 

+' 

V 

S 

X 

I 

<» 
* 

\ 

i 

/ 
/ 
/ 

s 

.•»"■ 

**> 

-- 

f 

Pa 

> 

i 

/ 

f 

\ 

/ 
f 

\ 

+* 

^' 

Ta 

•}/<3 

/ 

— 

y 

/ 

i 

< 

/ 

*. 

/ 

/ 

<" 

/ 

j 

/ 

t 

\. 

^ 

.• 

^ 

/ 

18. 

tf I90O    1      Z      3      4      5     6       7     8     9     I9IO    II      IZ     13     14     15    16     17    18     19   I9ZO  Zl     ZZ  Z3    Z4    Z5   Z0   Z 

r 

Fig.  7. — In  the  last  twenty-five  years  California's  total  output  of  grapes  in- 
creased four  times;  raisin  grapes  considerably  more  than  five  times;  and  table 
grapes  nearly  30  times.  Wine-grape  production,  after  reaching  a  peak  in  1911, 
declined  until  1922,  when  increasing  output,  as  the  result  of  high  post-war  prices, 
was  first  felt.     (Data  from  table  4,  p.  30.) 


more  than  five  times;  and  table  grapes  nearly  thirty  times.  Wine- 
grape  production,  after  reaching  a  peak  in  1911,  declined  until  1922, 
when  increasing  output,  stimulated  by  high  post-war  prices,  was 
first  apparent. 

Production  of  Chief  California  Districts. — An  estimate  of  Califor- 
nia grape  production  for  1925,  made  by  the  Crop  Eeporting  Service, 
is  the  first   data  available   since   the   1919   census   from  which   the 


30 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


TABLE  4 

Estimated  Commercial  Production  of  Grapes  in  California,  by  Classes, 

1899-1926 


Year 


1910-14  average. 

1899 

1900 

1901 

1902 

1903 

1904 

1905 

1906 

1907 

1908 

1909 

1910 

1911 

1912 

1913 

1914 : 

1915 

1916 

1917 

1918 

1919 

1920 

1921 

1922 

1923 

1924 

1925 

1926* 

1927 


Production  in  thousands  of 
tons  (i.e.,  000  omitted) 


Wine 


491 

236 
232 
379 
380 
314 
328 
370 
423 
462 
478 
490 
489 
549 
462 
459 
497 
342 
507 
441 
343 
400 
375 
310 
450 
428 
350 
395 
413 


Table 


13 

12 

14 

15 

27 

22 

24 

31 

52 

57 

88 

74 

96 

95 

95 

132 

134 

136 

161 

173 

200 

166 

163 

213 

312 

325 

339 

366 


Raisin 


304 

143 
189 
148 
216 
240 
160 
180 
200 
300 
260 
280 
250 
260 
380 
264 
364 
512 
528 
652 
668 
730 
732 
627 
1,043 
1,290 
860 
1,178 
1,261 


Total 


893 


433 
541 
611 
581 
510 
574 
654 
814 
795 
858 
813 
905 
937 
818 


1,171 
1,254 
1,184 
1,330 
1,273 
1,100 
1,706 
2,030 
1,535 
1,912 
2,040 


Production  in  percentage  of 
1910-1914  average 


Wine 


100  0 

48.0 
47.2 
77.2 
77.4 
63.9 
66.8 
75.3 
86.1 
94.1 
97.3 
99.8 
99.6 

111.8 
94.1 
93.4 

101.2 
69.6 

103.2 
89.8 
69.8 
81.4 
76.3 
63.1 
91.6 
87.1 
71.3 
80.4 
84.1 


Table 


100  0 


13.2 

12.2 

14.2 

15.2 

27.4 

22.4 

24.4 

31.5 

52.8 

57.9 

89.4 

75.2 

97.6 

96.5 

96.5 

134.1 

136.2 

138.2 

163.6 

175.8 

203.3 

168.7 

165.7 

216.5 

317.1 

330.3 

344.5 

372.0 


Raisin 


100  0 

47.0 

62.2 

48.7 

71.1 

78.9 

52  6 

59.2 

65.8 

98.7 

85.5 

92.1 

82.2 

85.5 

125.0 

86.8 

119.7 

168.4 

173.7 

214.5 

219.7 

240.1 

240.8 

206.2 

343.1 

424.3 

282.9 

387.5 

414.8 


Total 


100  0 

43.9 
48.5 
60.6 
68.4 
65.1 
57.1 
64.3 
73.2 
91.2 
89.0 
96.1 
91.0 
101.3 
104.9 
91.6 
111.2 
110.6 
131.1 
140.4 
132.6 
148.9 
142.6 
123.2 
191.0 
227.3 
171.9 
214.1 
228.4 


Per  cent  of  total 
production 


Wine 


55  0 

60.2 
53.6 
70.0 
62.2 
54.1 
64.3 
64.4 
64.7 
56.8 
60.1 
57.1 
60.1 
60.7 
49.3 
56.1 
50.0 
34.6 
43.3 
35.2 
29.0 
30.1 
29.5 
28.2 
26.4 
21.1 
22.8 
20.7 
20.2 


Table 


11  0 

3.3 

2.8 

2.6 

2.4 

4.6 

4.3 

4.2 

4  7 

6.4 

7.2 

10.3 

9.1 

10.6 

10.1 

11.6 

13.3 

13.6 

11.6 

12.8 

14.6 

15.0 

13.0 

14.8 

12.5 

15.4 

21.2 

17.7 

17.9 


Raisin 


34  0 

36.5 
43.6 
27.4 
35.4 
41.3 
31.4 
31.4 
30.6 
36.8 
32.7 
32.6 
30.8 
28.7 
40.6 
32.3 
36.7 
51.8 
45.1 
52.0 
56.4 
54.9 
57.5 
57.0 
61.1 
63.5 
56  0 


*  1926  data  are  preliminary  and  subject  to  revision. 

Sources  of  data: 

Col.  1.  Years  1899-1918  from  table  22,  page  111.  Years  1919-1924  from  California  Cooperative  Crop 
Reporting  Service,  California  Crop  Report  for  1925.  Calif.  Dept.  Agr.  Spec.  Pub.  63:27.  1926.  Years 
1925-1926  from  California  Cooperative  Crop  Reporting  Service,  Summary  of  California  Annual  Crop 
Report  1926:3  (mimeo.).  Jan.  5,  1927.  Unharvested  grapes  are  not  included  in  these  estimates.  Total 
production  including  unharvested  grapes  are  given  in  table  5,  page  34,  by  classes  1919-1926. 

Col.  2.  Years  1899-1918  calculated  by  subtracting  from  the  annual  interstate  shipments  of  all  grapes 
from  north  of  Tehachapi,  increased  by  25  per  cent  (to  include  estimated  shipments  from  south  of  Teha- 
chapi  and  total  estimated  consumption  within  the  state)  the  annual  total  interstate  shipments  of  wine 
grapes  from  the  whole  state  for  the  years  1915-1918.  These  adjusted  shipments  in  carloads  were  con- 
verted to  approximate  tonnage  on  the  basis  of  12  tons  net  per  loaded  car. 

Years  1919-1924  from  California  Crop  Report  for  1925,  p.  27.  Years  1925-1926  from  mimeographed 
Summary  of  California  Annual  Crop  Report  for  1926,  p.  3.     Data  for  1926  are  preliminary  estimates. 

Col.  3.  Years  1899-1912  from  California  Fruit  News.  Dec.  29,  1917,  p.  10.  Years  1913-1918  from 
Associated  Grower  5':16,  Jan.,  1923.  Years  1919-1924  from  California  Crop  Report  for  1925,  p.  26.  Years 
1925-1926  from  mimeographed  Summary  of  California  Annual  Crop  Report  for  1926,  p.  3.  Data  on  raisins 
are  converted  to  a  fresh  basis  by  using  one  ton  of  dried  raisins  as  the  equivalent  of  four  tons  of  fresh  fruit. 
Data  from  1920  to  date  also  include  raisin  grapes  consumed  in  fresh  form. 


BUL.  429]  ECONOMIC  STATUS  OF  THE  GRAPE  INDUSTRY  31 

approximate  output  of  each  of  the  three  districts  of  California  can 
be  segregated.  Production  in  the  eastern  states  was  abnormally  small 
in  1925,  and  as  a  result  California's  grape  output  was  over  92  per 
cent  of  the  United  States  total,  compared  with  an  average  of  about 
88  per  cent  for  the  last  three  years.  California's  1925  crop,  however, 
was  not  abnormal  in  size,  and  hence  the  estimates  of  California's  pro- 
duction by  districts  in  1925  help  to  visualize  the  typical  relative  out- 
put of  the  three  districts  in  recent  years.  The  central  district,  with 
50  per  cent  of  the  United  States  vines  in  that  year,  produced  approxi- 
mately 70  per  cent  of  the  national  grape  crop.  The  northern  district, 
with  about  17  per  cent  of  the  country's  total  acreage,  produced  18 
per  cent  of  the  crop,  while  southern  California,  from  6  per  cent  of 
the  vines  in  the  United  States,  produced  slightly  over  4  per  cent  of 
the  national  output. 

The  striking  fact  brought  out  by  these  figures  is  that  the  central 
and  the  northern  district  each  normally  produce  more  grapes  than 
the  rest  of  the  United  States  combined.  Even  the  production  of  the 
southern  district,  although  less  than  5  per  cent  of  California's  total 
output  of  grapes,  is  somewhat  greater  than  that  of  New  York,  the 
most  important  grape-producing  state  except  California.  The  1925 
output  of  the  northern  district — which  is  fairly  typical  of  the  last 
three  years — was  considerably  more  than  double  the  average  grape 
production  for  all  states  but  California  for  the  period  1924-1926, 
and  about  3.6  times  the  size  of  the  Great  Lakes  states'  crop  during  the 
same  period.  The  enormous  production  of  the  central  district — which, 
with  the  exception  of  San  Joaquin  County,  is  almost  synonymous 
with  the  San  Joaquin  Valley — is  brought  out  by  the  fact  that  its 
1925  output  was  nearly  four  times  as  great  as  that  of  the  northern 
district. 

PRODUCTION    FORECAST   FOR   CALIFORNIA 

Figure  8  was  prepared  to  help  visualize  California's  probable 
future  production  of  each  of  the  three  classes  of  grapes.  The  basic 
data  on  acreage  were  taken  from  the  California  Crop  Reports  and 
converted  from  bearing  acres  of  varying  ages  into  approximate  full- 
bearing  age.  In  calculating  the  full-bearing  acreages  which  are 
plotted  in  this  chart,  table  and  raisin-grape  vines  were  considered  as 
full  bearing  at  five  years  of  age  and  older,  and  wine-grape  vines  at 
six  years  of  age  and  older.  Production  data  include  estimates  of 
total  production,  unharvested  as  well  as  harvested,  made  by  the  Crop 
Reporting  Service.     In  order  to  compare  the  figures  for  full-bearing 


32 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


acreages  with  those  for  production  in  tons,  both  series  have  been 
converted  to  relatives  expressed  as  percentages  of  their  respective 
averages  for  the  years  1919-1925. 


Relative  California   Grape  Production ,    J9J9  -  1926 ,    and 
Estimated  Full- Bearing  Acreage  by  Classes 3  i919  ~  1928. 


175 
150 

'lZ5 

too 

75 

SO 
/75 


Raisin  Crapes 

\ 

Acreage 

_1 1 1 i              _       1        l'— —             1 

- 

Wine  Grapes 


^Production 


175 

150 

IZ5 

IOO 

75 

50 
175 

J50 

125 

100 

75 

50 
ZZ5 


ZOO 
175 
150 
125 
/OO 
75 
-A  50 


/9I9  ZO 


23 


Z9 


25 


Fig.  8. — Full-bearing  acreage  of  all  grapes  has  increased  rapidly  in  California 
since  1919  and,  with  the  exception  of  raisin  grapes,  promises  to  continue  upward 
until  1928  at  least.  It  is  questionable,  however,  whether  increases  in  output,  par- 
ticularly of  raisin  and  of  wine  grapes,  are  likely,  on  the  average,  to  keep  up  with 
increases  in  full-bearing  acreage  during  the  next  few  years.  (Data  from  table  5, 
p.  34.) 


BUL.  429]  ECONOMIC  STATUS  OF  THE  GRAPE  INDUSTRY  33 

If  the  average  yield  per  full-bearing  acre  remained  constant,  pro- 
duction would  tend  to  fluctuate  above  and  below  the  curve  of  relative 
full-bearing  acreage.  A  crop  above  normal  in  size  would  be  above 
the  curve  of  relative  full-bearing  acreage,  whereas  a  crop  smaller 
than  average  would  be  below  the  curve.  Reliable  data  on  yields 
per  acre  are  not  available  for  a  sufficient  number  of  years  to  judge 
whether  or  not  there  has  been  any  definite  trend  in  the  yields  per 
full-bearing  acre  of  each  class  of  grapes.  Economic  conditions  in  the 
grape  industry  in  the  next  few  years,  moreover,  may  easily  be  such 
as  to  affect  appreciably  the  care  which  growers  give  their  vines,  and 
hence  the  average  yields  per  acre  from  the  vineyards  of  the  state. 
Anyone  well  acquainted  with  the  grape  industry  can  name  several 
other  factors,  changes  in  which  might  affect  the  normal  yields  per 
acre  sufficiently  to  make  forecasts  based  on  present  yields  seriously 
out  of  line  with  the  actual  results  which  occur.  Among  these  factors 
are  pests  and  diseases,  weather  conditions,  methods  of  pruning  and 
culture,  the  proportion  of  bearing  acreage  in  heavy  and  in  light- 
bearing  varieties,  or  in  heavy  or  light-bearing  districts,  and  the 
amount  of  acreage  neglected,  abandoned,  or  grafted  over. 

Study  of  the  table-grape  curves  in  figure  8  shows  that  increases 
in  the  production  of  this  class  of  grapes  have  been  fairly  consistently 
close  to  what  one  might  expect  from  the  trend  of  increase  in  full- 
bearing  acreage.  Apparently  there  has  been  no  appreciable  decline 
in  the  yield  per  acre  since  1919,  and  hence  production  has  tended 
to  rise  just  about  as  rapidly  as  the  estimated  full-bearing  acreage. 
Table-grape  acreage  has  increased  at  a  much  more  rapid  rate  than 
the  acreage  of  any  other  class  of  grapes.  The  1926  acreage  was  almost 
2.5  times  the  1919  acreage,  and  the  estimate  for  1928  is  2.8  times 
the  1919  figure.  It  is  estimated  that  there  were  about  53,000  full- 
bearing  acres  of  table  grapes  in  the  state  in  1919,  which  number 
increased  to  about  131,000  acres  in  1926,  and  promises  to  be  about 
147,000  acres  in  1928.  With  anything  like  the  average  of  table-grape 
yields  per  acre  of  the  last  eight  years,  California's  production  of  table 
grapes  in  1928  may  well  be  in  the  neighborhood  of  half  a  million 
tons.  Whether  all  of  such  a  tremendous  crop  would  be  harvested 
and  marketed,  even  if  it  actually  matured,  is  questionable.  Prices 
may  be  such  that  large  quantities  will  be  left  on  the  vines. 

The  curves  showing  the  growth  of  the  raisin-grape  industry  indi- 
cate that  its  growth  has  not  been  at  such  a  rapid  rate  as  that  of  table 
grapes,  and  that  maximum  full-bearing  acreage  apparently  will  be 
reached  in  1927.    The  full-bearing  raisin-grape  acreage  was  2.1  times 


34 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


1 

c 

M 

.a  a 

OJ    OS 

0  © 
0 

3 

1 

1      O 
1      P 

1 

ec 

DC 

S    •*     Ol    N    M    rt    M 
O     CO     rH    O    UO    CO    CO 
•»tl     -«t<     IO     CO     CO     CO     CO 

GO 

a 
u 

M 

a 

'm 
'3 

bt) 

a^2 

£•3 

aSBjaAB 

52-6161 

jo  ^uao  idc\ 

a 

O 

e 

1     nixoiicco^cooi 

OOiNHMNOOtl 

suojl 

s 

1      CO*— 1    CO    CO    CO    -h     Oi    t^- 

1    ^^Miiuinwn 

a 

.2 

0 

aSBjaAB 

52-6161      1  2 
jo  juao  jaj  | 

e 

1     oifflxnmni-ito 
I    NNOHMonn 

(pa^iuio 
O00)'suox 

3 

00 

CO 

1       OtNIt^COOOCO^ 
1      N    N    O    O    N    OO        "    N 

bfi 

3 

■c 

0) 

fa 

aSBjaAB 

98-6161 

jo  -juaa  aa^ 

s. 

O 
e 

(pajjirao 
000)  «»-k>V 

s 

CO 

C4 

1      OOOOCOCM»0<M05COIO 

COt^Oi^HCOt^-HCO-^l-^ 

HHHNNNMMCOM 

(pa^iuio 
000)  saaoB  SuuBag 

s 

en 
co 

1      OOi|-~<N-*t<OCTicNICT2iO 
1— <    1— 1>— l<M(MCOCOCOCOCO 

03 

cd 

a 

bfi 

H 

bC 

a*2 
.22  • 
^3 

3SBJ3AB 

52-6161 
jo  ^uao  jaj 

" 

0 
0 

oioniciooomco 

suox 

2 

00 
CO 

1    xeoo^Ttioooo! 

1      MWN^^M^N 

3 
O 

O 

aSBjaAB 

52-6161 

jo  ^uao  jaj 

a 

e 

COtJHOO-^OJ-hO 

t^t^COO'-H-HCO'"*! 

(pa^nno 

000)  suojl 

"" 

0»-icoco<n1>ocs-h 
o©coi^<-hc\icooo 

bO 

3 

'E 

oj 

<u 

3 
fa 

aSBjaAB 

re-fiwi 

jo  ^uao  ja,j 

2 

| 

■*OONOOOIN>0'tiHOO 
t^t^-COOOOCMlOOOOO 

rt    h    h    rt    cq    N 

(pa^jiuio 
000)  sajoy 

Oi 

t- 

MlOMNHNOHnN 

»omuocor^ooi-ico-^-*i 

(paj^iuio 
000)  S8J0T3  SuiJBag 

00 

t- 

I0t^0»0r~t-~CO-Ct<0000 

0) 

a 
t-, 

bfl 

O 

bO 

S3 
a*2 
.2  • 
^3 

aSBjaAB 

52-6161 
jo  iuao  jaj 

- 

O 
O 

«5IV~»00'— 1    m    N    N 

HOIOOMOOOOOM 

suoj. 

CO 

CO 

-huO'— it^-cOO'— lOi 

^   co   co   ^   co   co   co   o} 

a 
0 

w 

3 

O 
fa 

aSBjaAB 

52-6161 

jo  ^uao  aaj 

US 

c 

coooor^-Hr-icNir^ 

OOOOOC<|T-i0200 

(pa^iuio 
000)'suojJ 

■<*< 

00 
CO 

OOOOCXJOUOCO 
^     CO    CO    ^     ^     CO    CO    ^ 

M 

3 

'E 
a 
o> 

J3 

3 

fa 

aSBjaAB 

52-6161 
jo  ;uao  jaj 

CO 

| 

05OC0t^CT>COCOO5O500 

ooososojoo^hnoo'* 

(pawiuio 
000)  S9J3V 

CM 

en 

c 

SO>IMil50)CDtOHHW 
OlUOOHHNTjiuJtD 

(pa^iuio 
000)  fe'SJO'B  SuuBa^j 

- 

t^-C3>COCO(MOOt^->*<0 

asoo^^cMcoiocot^ 

C3 

4>   es 

bo    1 
o3   « 

0 
0 

c 

3 

0 

3 

CN 

— 

c 
3 

CN 

- 

3 

CC 
CM 

3 

0 

— 

3 

c 

■C     O 


-  3      fl      S 


.  3 

a 

^^ 

0 

<s. 

3   4) 

O 

0 
0 

a: 

3 

•  a 

BO 

fea 

u 

<^ 

bO 

T3 

a-^ 

tn 

^ 

00 

fat 

.   4) 

cl  coT3 

«*-    > 

r;NC 

60 


S°      03  a-^ 

j_  **  j:  B  /S  t> 
o  o£-S«  c 

■"  ic  c!  k  a.a 

■g  ^  O  ffl  O  o3 
O  3   ™  3  flTJ 


c8   O. 


a  Saul's 

clbcSaOs 
u  g^,^^  a 
g-g  a*  °S 
faW^^SO 

c  fl  *  §T3  S 


d     ciooco   03rt   ftiH 

S  je  ^t«n  o  ^-  2  co" 

00   <h  »  10  t<  «i  O  m 

fa    °33  go  2-3 

*  goo§;o.so 
2     .a    a 

3  Mm 


BUL.  429]  ECONOMIC   STATUS   OF   THE   GRAPE   INDUSTRY  35 

the  acreage  in  1919.  By  1928  it  will  probably  be  almost  2.2  times 
the  1919  figure.  The  actual  increases  in  both  acreage  and  tonnage, 
however,  have  been  enormous.  The  approximate  full-bearing  acreage, 
which  was  perhaps  160,000  in  1919,  had  risen  to  about  339,000  in  1926, 
and  promises  to  be  in  the  neighborhood  of  346,000  acres  in  1927  and 
to  drop  to  about  345,000  acres  in  1928.  Relative  production  of  raisin 
grapes  in  the  last  three  years  has  not  quite  kept  pace  with  the  increase 
in  full-bearing  acreage.  The  relative  decline  in  production,  on  the 
other  hand,  has  not  been  sufficiently  pronounced  to  support  a  forecast 
of  a  declining  normal  yield  per  acre  for  California  raisin  grapes.  If 
the  curve  of  future  full-bearing  acreage  can  be  considered  a  good 
indicator  of  production,  a  normal  1928  raisin-grape  crop  may  be 
slightly  larger  than  the  1926  crop. 

The  rate  of  increase  in  full-bearing  wine-grape  acreage  in  Cali- 
fornia has  been  slower  than  the  increases  for  both  table  and  raisin 
grapes.  Unlike  raisin  grapes,  however,  the  trend  of  growth  in  acreage 
is  apparently  upward  for  the  next  two  or  three  years,  as  is  likewise 
the  case  with  table-grape  acreage.  The  estimated  full-bearing  acreage 
of  wine  grapes  in  California  in  1919  was  about  97,000.  In  1926  it 
was  approximately  140,000  acres,  having  increased  around  45  per  cent 
since  1919.  By  1928  the  acreage  will  probably  be  near  161,000,  which 
will  represent  an  increase  of  about  66  per  cent  since  1919.  The  pro- 
duction of  wine  grapes  in  the  last  four  years  has  apparently  not  come 
as  near  keeping  pace  with  full-bearing  acreage  as  in  the  case  of  raisin 
grapes  and  table  grapes.  The  average  yield  per  acre  may  be  declining 
somewhat.  If  this  be  the  case,  the  wine-grape  crop  in  1928  may  be 
a  half-million  tons,  which  it  could  easily  be  if  production  were  to 
nearly  parallel  the  estimated  future  full-bearing  acreage. 

To  summarize :  Full-bearing  acreage  of  all  three  classes  of  grapes 
has  increased  rapidly  since  1919.  All  but  raisins  indicate  a  further 
increase  until  1929.  Table-grape  acreage  has  increased  at  the  most 
rapid  rate,  and  wine-grape  acreage  the  least.  There  may  be  a  tendency 
for  the  normal  yield  per  acre  of  grapes  to  decline  somewhat  in  the 
next  few  years.  The  tendency  is  not  evident  in  table-grape  produc- 
tion, but  raisin-grape  production  per  acre  seems  to  indicate  a  slight 
downward  trend.  An  apparent  downward  trend  in  the  yield  per 
full-bearing  acre  is  more  noticeable  in  the  case  of  wine  grapes  than 
with  raisin  grapes.  Production  of  all  three  classes  is  still  on  the 
increase,  as  full-bearing  acreage  increases. 


36 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


ANNUAL  SHIPMENTS 

Shipments  by  Chief  Sections  of  United  States,  1924-1926. — Figure 
9  is  designed  to  show  the  relative  importance  of  the  chief  commercial 
grape  shipping  sections  of  the  United  States  in  recent  years,  as  far 
as  carlot  shipments  are  concerned.  The  total  length  of  each  bar 
shows  the  average  annual  number  of  carloads  shipped,  1924-1926. 
Total  United  States  shipments,  as  shown  by  the  top  bar,  have  averaged 
over  76,000  cars  in  recent  years.  Of  these,  California  has  shipped  87 
per  cent,  or  nearly  66,000  carloads.  Shipments  from  the  central  district 
of  California  alone,  as  pictured  in  the  third  bar  from  the  top,  have 


United  States  Shipments   of   Gropes  by  Sections    of   Origin t 
Average,    /9/9  -1921    and    /9Z4   -  /92<5 


iooo's  o-r 

Car-loads 


37.3  76.Z  United  Sta-tes 

Z8.8  65.7  California 

15.0  44.0  Cen-hral  Calif. 

11.9  17.9  Northern  Calif. 

83  9.1  Great  La  ices 

1.9  3.8  Sout-hern  Calif. 

O.l  I.I  Cent-ra/  West      \ 

O.I  0.3  All  Others 


Fig.  9. — United  States  grape  shipments  doubled  in  the  last  six  years,  increas- 
ing from  about  37,000  carloads  to  76,000.  Most  of  this  increase  came  from  Cali- 
fornia, in  which  state  87  per  cent  of  the  country's  shipments  originated  in  the 
last  three  years.  Central  California  alone  accounted  for  58  per  cent  of  the  national 
movement  in  these  three  years,  northern  California  nearly  one-fourth,  the  Great 
Lakes  states  only  one-eighth,  and  southern  California  about  5  per  cent.  (Data 
from  table  6,  p.  38.) 


averaged  44,000  cars  a  year,  constituting  nearly  58  per  cent  of  the 
total  United  States  shipments.  Northern  California  is  next  in  order, 
the  18,000  cars  from  this  section  accounting  for  nearly  one-fourth 
of  the  country's  total  shipments.  The  Great  Lakes  states  of  New 
York,  Michigan,  Pennsylvania,  and  Ohio,  as  a  section,  have  shipped 
slightly  over  9,000  cars  of  grapes  a  year  from  1924  to  1926,  or  about 
one-eighth  of  the  commercial  supply  of  the  United  States.  Movement 
from  southern  California  during  the  last  three  years  averaged  nearly 
3,800  cars,  or  about  5  per  cent  of  the  national  shipments.  The 
thousand   cars  which   rolled   from  the   central  western   district   can 


BUL.  429]        ECONOMIC  STATUS  OF  THE  GRAPE  INDUSTRY  37 

hardly  be  seen  on  the  chart,  as  they  constituted  less  than  2  per  cent 
of  the  country's  total.  The  movement  from  all  other  states  is  incon- 
sequential. 

Rapid  Increase  in  United  States  Shipments  Compared  with  Acre- 
age and  Production. — From  1920  to  1925,  while  grape  acreage  in  the 
United  States  increased  about  50  per  cent,  shipments  increased  nearly 
150  per  cent,  but  production  increased  only  25  or  30  per  cent.  The 
more  rapid  increase  in  shipments  as  compared  with  acreage  and 
production  is  accounted  for  in  part  by  the  fact  that  the  largest 
increase  in  production  has  come  about  in  California,  which  produces 
considerably  heavier  yields  per  acre  than  in  the  East.  Then,  too, 
because  of  the  extremely  specialized  and  commercial  nature  of  grape 
growing  in  this  state,  a  larger  percentage  of  our  table-grape  produc- 
tion probably  has  been  shipped  than  in  the  East.  In  addition,  as  a 
result  of  national  prohibition,  much  of  the  great  increase  in  California 
shipments  has  been  composed  of  grapes  formerly  converted  into  wine 
or  raisins  before  leaving  the  state.  Now  most  of  the  wine-grape 
production  of  the  state,  which  formerly  went  to  wineries,  moves  from 
the  state  by  rail  in  a  fresh  state.  Raisin  grapes,  formerly  practically 
all  dried,  have  moved  to  eastern  markets  in  increasing  quantities 
in  a  fresh  state  in  recent  years,  partly  as  a  result  of  the  attractive 
prices  which  they  brought  for  juice  purposes  for  a  few  years  and, 
more  recently,  because  of  the  very  low  prices  of  raisins. 

The  growth  of  the  grape  industry,  however,  is  not  nearly  as  out 
of  proportion  to  the  increased  domestic  demand  for  grapes  as  a  casual 
comparison  of  the  increase  in  United  States  population  with  ship- 
ments of  grapes  might  lead  one  to  believe.  The  total  population  of 
the  United  States  increased  about  16  per  cent  in  the  last  ten  years, 
and  the  population  of  cities  of  50,000  or  more,  which  consume  a 
large  majority  of  California  grapes,  increased  nearly  twice  as  fast. 
Although  the  demand  for  fresh  grapes  at  reasonably  remunerative 
prices  to  growers  has  expanded  far  faster  than  city  population  in  the 
last  ten  years,  the  extremely  low  level  of  fresh-grape  prices  in  the 
last  two  years,  and  the  indications  of  still  lower  prices  for  wine- 
grape  varieties  in  the  next  few  years,  seem  to  indicate  that  the  supply 
is  now  tending  to  outrun  demand. 

Increase  by  Chief  Sections  from  1920  to  1926. — Figure  9  is  also 
designed  to  show  the  increase  in  average  shipments  between  the 
periods  1919-1921  and  1924-1926.  Total  United  States  shipments 
slightly  more  than  doubled  during  this  period,  the  increase  being 
39,000  carloads.     California  alone  accounted  for  95  per  cent  of  this 


38 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


tfi    to 
lO     CM 


H      U)     T|(      rt     <(     ■*      OO 

b-    CO    rH     O    *H    O    O 


tO     CT>    O    to 


mt^»oi^toe*citf3r-~rHtoco 


CM  •*  tO  US 


0*  00  •>*< 

W  lO  Tf  ■* 


ff>  lO  cn  o  lO 


0O  lO  Ol  H  o 
O  00  N  C  lO 


O  CO      »H  t^  rH      iH 


tD  CO  O 


O  (O  Ol  00  h 
t-  N  W  15 


N  «!  ^l  (• 


(O  IN  O)  ^  U) 


O  O  05  CO  -H 

0O  to  CM  tD  O 


00  »C  CO  O  00 

r*i  cm  cm  ©  00 

M  to  N  0O  91 

ifl  ■*"  N  m"  9> 


N  (N  ie  OO  CO 
t*<  OS  lO  lO  CO 


US  OS  lO  o 


>OC-OOOOOOOlO 


N    U)    0O    lO 


«l    M    N    O    «5 


m  «5  ■*  ■*  m  m 


CO     UJ    CO 


IN    N    t-    0O 


r--  -»*i  !-< 


moooui-titococMenr^-* 

.— iCT>t-00©-<*<<NltOtOCMrH 
CO    OS    >*    e*    O^   ©    <N_  »H 

r-T  rH*  eq    cJ  »o    "5    H 


lO    O0    ^     N  h  CO    h 

ffl    N    >*    O  IO  OO    OO 

©    t—_    C-_   IO  t^  t^-_    O0 

o"    rH    00"   00~  CO  CO 


t-V©rHCOtO»OT-iCM 

e>j   ©   o   to   co         i-t 


t-O^HOOrHtOOOOOOrHiO 
e3j*H<NO>O0}IA(N  00 

»H^   «     CO     N     00     rH     rH 

CO    1"    CO*  co" 


1  « 

2  -a 

II 

o    o> 


a 

c3 

id     O     c3   "? 

»H  © 

O  o 


II  1  jj 


§1 


Bul.  429] 


ECONOMIC   STATUS   OF   THE   GRAPE   INDUSTRY 


39 


CO 

SM'  — 

OS 

g     •  c3 

71 

"^O 

**< 

CD**-,  +-' 

PL,   O 

01 

bC 

03 

0) 

> 

< 

ir 

0>t»<-hO10'-h00O5 

e*oiiooc>«^Hco»ra 

c 

cn 

NNrH(NH-lNT)l 

CO 

ac 

*Hi-H00COe0t~-t^t^ 

CM 

<= 

NoitflMiem*M 

OS 

cs 

e^tM^Hi-HlH^H-^lO 

1-1 

'O 

<T 

cn 

N     CO     H    IN                      ■*    Tt< 

t- 

»H^HT^ioeococo"5 

<M 

oc 

©rfiiOOS^ICSi— '■<*« 

CT5 

NNrt-HrtrtcOcO 

M 

(-. 

> 

03 

CO 

t-i 

in 

NOllOMr-MHOJ 

CM 

c- 

OIN*OrtH*« 

02 

03 

«-t 

thcm-hcmi-ii-hcncm 

K- 

CNI 

o 

3 

MOOrt^tC^NO) 

CM 

WcOCMCOOOOOOt^ 

C33 

d 

»H 

tHt-*^HCM»Hi-ICO^H 

0) 

« 

ft 

,_, 

a 

^H 

tei*ooe>*»-iooo 

CM 

O 

iH-HCMOlOlOCOCM 

OJ 

CD 

S 

•H 

o 

J3 
CO 

^H 

©005©«*^^Oi 

CM 

^H 

03 

1H 

*-(         rt                          ^H         lH         T-l        1-1 

CT5 

gg 

^CMlOlOClCMcOlO 

coooooa>©ocMt^ 

OJ 

lH     i— 1     i-H 

U- 

0> 

©     Oi     CO     t^ 

<r 

CO 

US    Tfl    t^    <M 

oa 

(^ 

CT 

t-H 

US    kO     t^     i-H 

<£ 

CO 

fll     O)    O    CO 

OS 

ir 

a> 

.s 

3 

Is 

H     co    -^ 

J    *! 

3 

c 

.2    i3    i3  73    "&     a>     S 

D 

5 

■3  £  .2  -2  u    »  -£  "5 

ejcj«eMH»iJ 

5 

w 

•a  £3:s!^£s 

1 

c3                         =3 

P 

a 

<* 

3       Q 


CP  cu  o3  d 

c3  cj'S  O 


Sw.S  g.s  S  o 

d£J  d  «d  o<« 
o**-1  a°  £7i°  mox-'O 


!o^b-s-o2o 


c  "' 


2  5  ^  2    -g 

g   rt  g   03   03 


CD    O      . 


few  S  «  5  ts><  §<  o  m-s 


03  Or 


3cc:S     «     . 

d    r  co  co  u  ~  >  "3  A 


PQ. 


ftco   O 


,^^g^*agg 

ibosSWSg-Sgg-Sceg 


"o3ft^>;pc3.cd^^§'0  g 

00  .d  o3      2  c^>?vt3    *o 

u  t*  ^  °  Sh  3  £  ^ 


03  fl^.-^03o^ 

pj  43  _  i  co  ft-fl  o  (o  d  o3     .  ftt"n  ^ 


!Srt3§£8si.5s 

«_oJ^  d  cp  §  03  B  o  S 


S  2 


^  2 
^.S- 


:o^ 


bi 


-^  2  g.2.2  cu-g^^^  gj 

d.hr^t^   fci   Q,        fl-u,,   Sc_i 


i    c3 


fcnard-^^oEHfc 


a,- 

C  i 


■u 


?  = 


^_d. 


b    02  -£o  cd 


©iB-t; 


^5  45     _T3 


§2E^r 


^■5  g  M-SftS^-S.sJ  ?3r=«  03 

-fl  ro  o  ..  a>  is  d 

-^13  £<  g  §  <» 

SflcHSoS^  &  ^  «  8  "^ 
2  es  §2^3.2.3  o>d  Hr^ 
^MO^Hisa^^^J^^o 

CI   >S     .       .2-^.3  c-  g^  C^?co 


22  S-SQ^ 


0>      Tj      .0) 

i-l  W     ^     CO 


CD  +J    «    O 


o-^-«    ry-3-dftrt"S^o1^^-" 

^|^H2a|-||^  - 
a2'g2^.3co:;:'"'«  ^g^m  ^ 

n  ftft^  c'd^.t;'o3  ^isccja 


ft.21 
ft  13 


S"SQ.Sft«2^p. 


|73h5   0) 


40 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


J3  © 


•^i-Hi-it^cNi^ooooo 
cqoi«-ioooooooo 


MS 


"O    "O    ■*    ■*    N 


Irt     t-     I-H 

o>   iO   o 


COOIO-^COI^IM^H© 
OiCi-io^HOOOO 


*  m  oo  t^  •*  uj 


lO©-«tlO<MCOCNI>-llOI-~CO© 


ifl    <*    IN 
CO     OO     CO     OO     lO 


n  ■*   cj  m 


o  o 
©  ©' 


«>*CO<Niai©COCT2© 


M    O    rft    O    «5    r~-    -h 


CO    r-l     05    00    <M 


CD     t-     »C     r-H 


N    IM    115    m    oo 

CO     CO     OS     lO     r-H 
00    lO    ■"*<    <M    »h 


CN1    CN1    <M 


0>©©t^»Otf505lO 

M    M    N    M    H 


kA    ^    i-H    \rs 


<N    CO    O0    CO    t^    ■«*<     CO 


iO    ©    CO    ©    CM_  ©_  00 

CO     C^T    rt     Oj"    .-T  •-« 


lOOO<MOt^lOOOCO 


■at   <M  •"*<  I-t 


*H  OO  OS  OS  OS 
M  •*  !D  O  (M 
<S    <*    iO    o 


O    CT2    >0    >#     <M    © 

T)(     !D     >*     rt     O     "O     CO 
lO    •>*     !M     ■*     <M 


t—    •<*<     OS    •«*<     O     Oi    "C*< 
0O    N     »    00    S    N    W 


laoow^NNnw 

^MOOlOWNHN 
00    o    —i    t+  CO    "fl 


CO^f"5CDO-^COCOlOCOOCOlOO>OcO 


2   to 


2  O 


s6 


B  8  pq  j  |  ^  £  a 


b 

01 

?       g  1  I  I  S3 


Bul.  429] 


ECONOMIC  STATUS  OF  THE  GRAPE  INDUSTRY 


41 


to 

<N 

sj3 

<»    ifl    O- 

4    OO    ©    tO    CO    rt    rt    ,- 

■looooooo       e-t^toto-*-*oo 

OS 

OOOCOCOCMO'— IOOOOOOOOOOOOO           lOCOOOOOOO 

s-  »  o 

co   <— i 

"<*< 

0J«t-i  -^ 

<N 

fL,    O 

O 

M 

1     CO 

C^^OCOOrtt^cOO<Nt-~(NrtoOI^rteOCMrt,- 

CONOOOOONHM 

»   uj    cq   N   N  ra 

i 

> 

.&e 

e^ooocooortioosoort^iortrt 

O    l-J_    CO    CO    CO_    lO    tO    CO    t-H     CM     CM 

[•_   ■*    *    M    N    M 

J3   <U 

©~    <N     <N     Cm"    r-T 

CO    CM 

< 

C*      ^H 

rt 

3<s_ 

OI>-©iOCOrtt©f~0(NtOCOO 

o 

o 

U»    IO    00    tO     ©    00    © 

OS 

S^J 

<*    ^    *    N    r- irtOOCOOOOCO 

o 

© 

t©   CO   o   ©   ©   ©   © 

l 

^     (B    O 

03 

Ph  o 

03 

> 

1      «Q 

^■HlOOOOtOOOltOlOHHOOil 

CO 

tK 

H    rt    CD    0O    N    OO    rt 

.e-c 

tOrtCOOt—    OiOOrtlotO             i-( 

io   to  h   m  io  h 

00     O    CM    l-H     CM    CM 

*   "1.  ''l  N   m   ■*   ^   N                 "H 

CO  g 

e*   oT  ^-T 

*-T  i-T 

<< 

# 

00 

4(1     rt     Cl>     Ol    OO     CO 

«h   c-a   to   to   oo   to 

■»** 

to 

(»»rt^b~c»UO»OOOrt             CM    CO 

IO    CM    ■"*<    T*<    » 

Ol"     H      H      H      1-4 

»H      H 

co   cm" 

„ 

HN<J(N(BNN00NNesOl»00^M^* 

<Ot^05030t^C<IIM 

>o 

rtortiNOOlOt^CM©'— i    (D    U)    M 

p*    Oi   oo   oo   c<i    cq 

CM 

(OrtNN*NN«HraiN 

rt    0B    (f 

)    IN    CO    M 

»-l    CO     IN     CM    r* 

<*   ci 

inr-io©r^cooto»o<Nr^<Noor^rttococM 

«*     CO    — 

r^   to   r^ 

•* 

HOlM^OOlCONNNINTtl'* 
rtOi©Oi<NCOCOCOCOrt<N 

tO    "0     O    t—    CM     O 

c*} 

»    N    ■*    CO    CO    CO 

to 

O)     -h     N     rt     rt 

oo  c<r 

O 

t-N^HO^ONOOO^^OO 

to 

© 

00      T- 

o   co   to  to   o   io 

CO 

"u 

0<OH^onoiotoaiooH 

CM 

O    CN    IO    rt    ilj    U5 

CM 

c3 

T*iO^I>^0^<NiOrtrtrt              <N     rt 

oo    Tfi    co   co   co   co 

CT> 

00    ~    ~    -h    i-i" 

eo   cm" 

+3 

G 
CD 

MM^THOOOiOtOtDiOMtOM 

»o 

co 

18    <D    OO    O)    CO    N    N 

CM 

ev5oo-*CT>^HioooaiooO'-icoc-a 

e  >o  y- 

rt     t^     CO 

<M 

s 

^Haooooiomn                cm 

^    K)    CO    IN    OO    * 

CT> 

p. 

lO     Oi     l-H     i-i 
r4 

**     CM 

£ 

CO 

0»rtrtloiO©050200©rt<Na> 

CM 

^    O    0O    rt    ifl    O    rt 

M^HNNtOINWrt^lNH 

r^ 

t-  ■"*  — 

to     CT>    IO 

<N 

C*©Cs|COiOCO<Nrt                      C^l 

00   o   c 

OS 

US      H      H      rt 

to 

»0 

O    «    115    N    N    tO    IN 

o 

Ol    O)    N    N    tO    [- 

CM 

N     O)    !D    ^     N    M    H    IN 

oi_q  - 

rt    CM    CM 

N    OO    rt" 

rtOOtOCOOrtOOO             rt     00             ^H 

o 

00      rt      ^ 

IN    O    OO 

OS 

C-    io    tr 

m  m   ^   co  n  m          cm                ■^ 

C-       Ol       7- 

rt    CO    <N 

" 

©     t-~    ^J" 

lrt 

N01WNini<«l'<)INHNOOOlHNtDOO'*M 

Ir^    t> 

OJ     O      CO      ^-<      I>. 

HHHHNNMNINNmWWmM'* 

rt     CN     CM     rt     CO 

c 

M  cjrt 

c 

+i 

■J   a 

J  .He 
*  P  t 

s 

c 
c 

0 

c 

F< 

a 

3S4 

•a 

CA 

a 

"2 

c 

„    b 

0    a 

1 

B 

el  i  a  . 

2  G  &  g  g 

•fi  co  co  co  £ 

-  S   c  - 

,3    e    c 

Ph  S  >■ 

co  >■ 

O     eJ 

'o    O    P 
co  Q  PC 

1  g  ri  •§  J  ri  g 

-3  -§  S  a  a  -S  -1 

®  a  > 

•g  co  P£ 

"B  ^  n  1 1 

gs  gas 

o 

o 

fc 

GS 

04S  c 


42 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


enormous  increase.  Shipments  from  central  California  nearly  tripled 
in  the  five-year  period  under  consideration.  The  increase  of  29,000 
carloads  from  this  section  accounted  for  three-fourths  of  the  country's 
total  growth  in  grape  shipments.  The  increase  from  northern  Cali- 
fornia was  about  6,000  cars,  or  50  per  cent.  Shipments  from  southern 
California  doubled,  increasing  from  around  1,900  to  approximately 
3,800. 


Average  Annua/  U5.  Shipments  of  Chief  Fresh  Fruits,    /9Z3  -  /SZ5. 


Per  Cen+    of   l~o-rol    Included    Fruit) 

/O  /5  SO  25 


Cans 

Apples IZO+ 

Grapes 72- 

Oranges 70+ 

Watermelons  40- 

Peaches 37+ 

Cantaloupes    Z8- 

Grapefrvf?      zi  - 

Pears 18+ 

Strawberries  /£-+ 

Lemons 11+ 

Mixed  Deciduous  ?- 

Plums,  Prunes   5+ 

Cherries 2* 

Mixed  Melons     Z+ 
Total  449 


Fig.  10. — Of  all  United  States  fruit  shipments,  grapes  have  been  second  only 
to  apples  in  recent  years,  accounting  for  nearly  16  per  cent  of  the  total  movement 
of  fruit.     (Data  compiled  from  Crops  and  Markets,  Monthly  Supplements.) 

The  carlot  movement  from  the  Great  Lakes  states  expanded  less 
than  40  per  cent  from  1920  to  1925.  It  must  be  remembered,  how- 
ever, that  there  has  probably  been  a  considerable  increase  in  the  use 
of  the  motor  truck  to  haul  grapes  from  this  section  to  nearby  markets, 
and  hence  the  actual  expansion  in  commercial  movement  has  been 
greater  than  that  indicated  by  the  change  in  carlot  shipments.  It 
must  not  be  forgotten  that  there  is  considerable  commercial  movement 
of  grapes  to  grape-juice  plants  in  the  Great  Lakes  states,  in  which 
the  bulk  of  unfermented  juice  produced  in  the  United  States  is 
pressed. 


Bul.  42! 


ECONOMIC   STATUS   OF   THE   GRAPE   INDUSTRY 


43 


The  most  remarkable  expansion  in  commercial  movement  in  recent 
years  has  occurred  in  the  central  western  states,  whose  average  annual 
shipments  of  1,100  cars  from  1924  to  1926  were  over  seven  times  the 
average  of  150  cars  a  year  which  rolled  in  the  period  1919-1921. 

United  States  Grape  Shipments  Second  to  Apples. — Among  the 
shipments  of  all  fruits  in  the  United  States  from  1923  to  1925,  grapes 
ranked  second  only  to  apples,  averaging  between  15  and  16  per  cent 
of  the  total  carlot  movement  of  all  fruits.     However,  nearly  as  many 


Cor/oad/ngs  of  Grapes  *  Other  Perishables,  Average,  I923-/9Z5. 
Total  for  California 7  Arizona,  •*■  New  Mexico . 


^loi 


CenS- 

Grapes  - 26.8 

Vegetables  -  20.4 

O ranges zo.o 

Cantaloupes  -    7.9 
Dec.  Tree  Fru/ts  7.4 

Lemons  4,9 

Other  Melons      2.9 
White  Potatoes  Zl 

Apples  — 1.0 

Miscellaneous    6.0 


Total  ZZO.7 ■-  ZOO.O% 


—     Thousands      ot1     Carioads 
10  ZO  30  40 


Fig.  11. — California's  grape  shipments  have  greatly  exceeded  those  of  any 
other  fruit  or  vegetable  in  recent  years,  averaging  27  per  cent  of  the  total  state 
movement  of  perishables.  (Data  compiled  from  Proceedings  of  Pacific  Coast 
Transportation  Advisory  Board.) 

oranges  as  grapes  were  shipped  during  this  period,  as  figure  10  shows. 
Previous  to  1925  the  volume  of  orange  shipments  was  larger  than  that 
of  grape  shipments,  but  in  the  last  two  years  the  rapidly  increasing 
movement  of  grapes  has  exceeded  the  total  shipments  of  oranges. 

Grapes  First  Among  California's  Perishables,  1923-1925. — The 
outstanding  importance  of  California's  grape  shipments  compared 
with  the  movement  of  other  kinds  of  perishables  from  the  state  from 
1923  to  1925  is  pictured  in  figure  11.  Grapes  have  constituted  nearly 
27  per  cent  of  the  carloadings  of  fresh  fruits  and  vegetables  in  tlin 


44  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

last  few  years.  Oranges,  the  second  fruit  in  volume  of  loadings,  have 
accounted  for  20  per  cent  of  the  state's  movement  of  perishables, 
although  they  were  exceeded  slightly  by  carloadings  of  all  vegetables 
taken  as  a  group.  How  greatly  California  grape  shipments  increased 
relative  to  other  perishables  between  1923  and  1925  is  shown  by  the 
fact  that  the  carloadings  of  grapes  increased  from  about  24  per  cent 
of  all  perishables  in  1923  to  over  30  per  cent  in  1925,  the  year  of  the 
heaviest  fresh-grape  shipments  ever  made  from  California. 


CALIFORNIA    SHIPMENTS    BY    VARIETIES    AND    CLASSES 

Total  Shipments  by  Classes,  1925  and  1926. — California  shipments 
of  each  of  the  three  classes  of  grapes15 — wine,  table,  and  raisin — were 
nearly  equal  in  1925.  According  to  the  best  available  estimates  23,800 
carloads  of  table  grapes  were  shipped,  25,500  of  wine  grapes,  and 
26,600  of  raisin  grapes.  (See  fig.  12,  p.  45,  and  table  8,  p.  32.)  Move- 
ment of  fresh  raisin  grapes  in  1925,  however,  was  exceptionally  heavy. 
In  1926  the  state  shipped  about  23,900  cars  of  table  grapes,  25,600 
of  wine  grapes,  and  14,600  of  raisin  grapes.  Table  grapes  in  1925 
constituted  about  31  per  cent  of  the  state's  total  grape  shipments; 
wine  grapes  nearly  34  per  cent;  and  raisin  grapes  35  per  cent.  In 
1926,  however,  table  grapes  made  up  37  per  cent  of  the  movement; 
wine  grapes  40  per  cent ;  and  raisin  grapes  only  about  23  per  cent. 

Growth  in  Shipments  by  Classes,  1919,  1925,  and  1926. — The  cross- 
hatched  portions  of  the  bars  in  figure  12  indicate  the  growth  in  ship- 
ments of  each  class  and  of  the  chief  varieties  of  grapes  between  1919 
and  1925.  Table-grape  shipments  increased  80  per  cent  between  1919 
and  1925,  while  the  movement  of  wine  grapes  increased  175  per  cent. 
Shipments  of  both  of  these  classes  of  grapes  were  practically  the  same 
in  1926  as  in  1925.  The  enormous  increase  in  raisin-grape  shipments 
is  most  striking.  Shipments  of  fresh  raisin  grapes  in  1919  amounted 
to  about  1,700  cars,  being  less  than  the  movement  of  any  one  of  the 
half-dozen  most  important  table  and  wine-grape  varieties  shipped 
during  that  season.  On  the  other  hand,  the  26,000  carloads  of  raisin 
grapes  shipped  from  California  in  1925  were  16  times  the  1919  move- 
ment. The  decline  of  12,000  carloads  in  total  shipments  of  California 
grapes  from  1925  to  1926  was  caused  by  an  almost  identical  decrease 
in  the  volume  of  fresh  raisin-grape  shipments. 

Although  there  are  no  data  on  California  grape  production  by 
varieties,  rough  estimates  of  shipments  by  varieties  are  available  for 


15  See  footnote  14,  page  28,  for  the  chief  varieties  included  in  each  of  the  three 
classes  of  grapes  under  discussion  here  and  throughout  the  entire  bulletin. 


Bul.  429] 


ECONOMIC  STATUS  OF  THE  GRAPE  INDUSTRY 


45 


the  years  1919-1921  and  for  1925  and  1926.  (See  table  8,  p.  32.) 
These  estimates  make  it  possible  to  show,  in  figure  12,  an  approxima- 
tion of  the  relative  importance  of  shipments  of  each  of  the  chief 
varieties  in  1925  compared  with  1919,  and  to  depict  rather  roughly 
the  increase  in  shipments  of  each  since  1919  (with  the  exception  of 
wine  grapes,  for  which  estimates  of  shipments  by  individual  varieties 
are  not  available  for  1919).  The  movement  of  fresh  grapes  from 
California  in  1925,  excluding  the  abnormally  heavy  shipments  of 
raisin  grapes,  is  probably  fairly  representative  of  the  past  three  years. 


California    Grape    Shipments   by    Varieties  and  Classes. 
1919  -  WKm  1925- 


Wine 
Tcrf-af 
"Z/'nfandef 
Alicarrf-e  B. 
Other  B/ack 
Other  White 


1919 

9.3 

f 

r 
? 
? 


—  Thousands   of  Carloads 
5  IO  15  ZO 


3D 


Raisin 

To-taf  1.7 

Muscat-  /.  / 
Thompson  S.   0.6 

Table 

To±af  I3.Z 

Ma  taiga.  6.7 

Tokac/  5.6 

Emp&ror*  0.6 

Others  03 

Grand  Total  Z4.z 


Fig.  12. — California  shipments  of  wine  and  table  grapes  were  practically  equal 
in  1925  and  only  slightly  larger  than  the  unusually  heavy  movement  of  grapes. 
From  1919  to  1925  table-grape  shipments  doubled,  wine  grapes  nearly  tripled,  and 
raisin-grape  shipments  increased  nearly  15  times.     (Data  from  table  8,  p.  46.) 

Table-Grape  Shipments  by  Varieties,  1919  and  1925. — Malagas 
have  remained  first  in  California's  carload  movement  of  individual 
varieties  from  1919  to  date,  except  in  1925,  when  the  unusually  heavy 
shipments  of  Muscats  put  the  latter  in  first  place.  Shipments  of  this 
variety  in  1919,  although  the  largest  of  any  single  variety,  amounted 
to  only  6,700  carloads.  In  1925  Malaga  shipments  were  nearly  50 
per  cent  greater  than  those  of  1919,  and  in  1926  were  over  70  per  cent 
greater.  The  10,000  carloads  moved  in  1925  constituted  about  13 
per  cent  of  California's  grape  shipments  and  42  per  cent  of  the  move- 
ment of  table  varieties.    Malagas  were  the  only  variety  of  table  grapes 


46 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


_, 

| 

CM   a; 

2   03 

«* 

»-ieT>t^-i^r-iooooo»o>o 

§ 

!SI?g 

Tt< 

eMO>oooor~oootDr~«o 

02  <3 

es 

h  h  is 

*H  > 

o* 

0) 

M 

T3 

03 

B_ 

o 

t-eooscocMt-^io-^Oi-HOi 

e 

^1  «  1- 

b 

2  5 

co 

tf»©lOCOt^OOCM^-*loi 

»-l  ©  l~ 

M    «    N 

8 

MO 

c 

«#    •#    ^H    wl                                        *H 

i3 

Ph 

O^ 

CM 

OS 

•* 

co 

rH 

1-1 

JS"* 

©©0-*t<OOi-Hi-H<0©0© 

©  0  0 

CM 

©    ©    ""*     CO    i-H                               ©    CO    t^- 

000 

°  o 

t-l     1-H                                                               »H 

TH     i-H     iH 

o^ 

M         m 

OJ        73 

a 

ooooooooooo 
ooooooooooo 

c 

©  ©  © 

-^         o3 

a 

e 

0  ©  0 

S  o£ 

<-H 

c 

'"l  *»  «    «    ^  N    N    00    (^   -^   CO 

t- 

iH    «©    ©_ 

3      £ 

e>" 

Irt    CO    "5    •**   CM                            «*    rH    co" 

t- 

00"  eo  ««r 

M 

»-l   *-H 

\e 

»H     M     »H 

CM    CJ 

2* 

a 

^HOJI^OOOSOOOiH©© 
©©OOt^OOOt-lOOO 

«s 

©  ©  © 
t-  t-  © 

TH     ^-1     ^ 

•"*! 

e 

a 

r!  > 

«*->   e3 

a; 

O 

M 

T3 

c3 

Brt 

o 

o>oooiccecot^co»Hicio 

e 

M    Ifl    N 

B 

03  c3 

CO 

e 

*#00CM02C0©O©C->-H»O 

1 

00    H    O 

MO 

e 

**    Tj<     CM    ^H 

eo   tJ<   «m 

u 

0) 

Ph 

o 

o 

OS 

CO 
CM 

CJJ 

93 

" 

•^ 

©OOO-hoO-^^HtH©©© 
©     ©     *#     «#                                        ©     <M    OO 

0  0  © 

CM 

000 

°  o 

»H     »H     iH 

o~ 

Sh             CO 

o>      -^ 

© 

©©ooooooooo 

a 

©  0  0 
©  ©  © 

°i  p»  *i. 

•°        e3 

o 

©©oooooo©oo 

°.   *.   W    *     rt.   N     N     N    O     *     ffl 

© 

2*0.2 

i-H 

00 

** 

£         03 

55       o 

00 

eo"  w  o"  ifl"  •"!*                    es~        i-? 

IT 

<n 

T-i      iH 

Ifl 

N    N    H 

CM    O) 

J.   M 

2   * 

** 

^t    00    O    00    CO    o 

id    rt     15    lO 

efl 

t-     O     (O     N     O 

00 

c»  er>  y-i  o  ■<*!  o 

«    (B    N    10 

»fl 

10  m  ^1   ra  cs 

o»  S3 

1-1      1-1                  i-H 

TH 

tH     I-H     CS     i-H     (M 

0J 

gc3 

M 

73 

c3 

b_ 

o 

»  ^  «  o  in  a 

IC    ©    lO    lA 

e 

0    t-    t-    ■>*<    CO 

B 

c3  _cj 

o 

00    «*    N    CO    (N    O 

O    t-    CM    i*l 

a 

^i    »    W    CN    CO 

03 

MO 

o 

CO    US     CM    CM 

0 

iH 

«    CI)     H               i-H 

(-c 

0J 

Ph 

O 

02 

CM 

02 

CM 

en 

CO 

IP       , 

— ' 

rH 

O    O    w    N    i*    N 

H    O    lO    "O 
©    00    eo 

0   0   ©   -0   -f 

CM 

©    ©    US    -* 

©      ©      ©      -H      OO 

u  o 

i-l     tH 

tH 

T-t     »H     i-H 

S** 

fc.        tc 

1^ 
h--         c3 

55       o 

^ 

©  ©  o  o  o  o 
©  ©  o  o  o  o 
eo   m   t^  o   «o   cs 

0  ©  0  0 

0  ©   0  0 

^H      t-      <0      ^H 

© 

i 

©  0  0  0  0 
©  ©  ©  0  0 

8.  *  ".  H.  *. 

of  m  <o  id 

^1 

en  t-  «o  i-H  >o 

CH 

" 

^ 

iH     iH 

09 

u 

03 

> 

53 

00 

-o 

b 

^0) 

c3 

05 

s 

09 

o3 

M   £ 

s m 

5  1 1  § 

U 

®  .2 

B 
0 

*  9 

0)     0 

1 

0 
•0 

1 

c 

T3 

'S  '5  m  > 

(U    0)   .2     C 

P    -B      n 

>  a3  .2    «   £ 

&   B    g    a. 

B     O  -B   73 

.si  3 

.2  -S  "C   q.  .n 

M«  Is 

|J  1  S  1 

B 
CO 

S3SHH000.2HS 

B 

u 
O 

1 

£ 

c3 

ft 

0 

1 

03 

s 

Bul.  429] 


ECONOMIC   STATUS   OF   THE   GRAPE   INDUSTRY 


47 


bO 
S3 

C 

03 
o 

a) 

Ph 

CM    03 

2  of 

^  > 

-03 

CD 
M 
03 
U 
03 

> 

o3 
CM 

CO 

CO 

| 

© 
o 

©  o  c 
o  o  c 

e 
c 

c 
c 

c 
c 

c 
c 

o 

e 

o 

r- 

c 

-a 
c_ 

03  o3 
MO 

o 

CO 

o 

1 

CO 

•>* 

10i(»ONN^001H 

tOT-tt^T^OOr-tOCMt^ 
<*t     CM     rH                                        t-4 

CO     . 

w  o 

<M 

s 

©COCTi©(MrHcM©CTirH 
O    Ttl     CO    i-h                               ©     CM    t^ 

T-l                                                               tH 

8  -s 

S^r2 

o 

s 

00 

s 

US 
yHJ 

OOOOOOOOOO 
OOOOOOOOOO 
US_   ^h    M    *    N    w    ■*    «    CO   q 

B    <P    *    H                                 C*'             CM" 

03 
M 
03 

C 
oj 

t- 

03 
Ph 

CM     03 

X   M 

> 

-03 

"* 

CO 
CM 

CO 

US 
CI 

(•  o)  m  ■* 

t»     OO     ^H     H 

lH      H      H      CO 

CM 

CO 
CM 

N    1C     ■* 
N    N    H 
W    lO    ic) 

73 
C  — 
o3  o3 

MO 

CO 

o 

§ 

OOOl^cDCOCOOCMOO 

9      _      rH      rH                  CO      t-t 

CO 
CO 

t-     CD     O     rH 
N    CD    (O    6 

P*                  rH 

°  o 

CM 

oaooicoocoiow 

OCMCMCOcM©->*lCMi-H 

tH                                            y-t 

OS 

O      CO      O      rH 

O     CM    t^ 

1*           CO 

v      73 

H»           03 

- 

o 
o 

•** 
to 

ooooooooo 
ooooooooo 

<0     CD    -^    O    O    ©\  ««    OS    ■* 

US    N    N    d            CO    rH     iO     tjT 

es,               _         cm   ^ 

O 

o 

O    O    o    o 

o   o   o   o 

tO_    CM     CO     rH 

*iT  tj<"  o 

03 
60 

C 
03 
g 
03 

Ph 

CM    q; 

co  oj 

go3 

-# 

us 

CM 

CO 

us 
to 

C4 

o 

ifl  ■*  n  o 
e-   cd   co  >o 

»H      rt      r-l      CO 

CM 
CM 

O      rH      lO 

tO      rH      CO 

T3 
MO 

co 

o 

§ 

«00tOP50CMHTjlT)( 

MNONrtHMOJlfi 
CO    r-l              rH             CO    rH 

CM 

M    O    «    CO 
US    CO    uo    o 

CO 

co_^ 

J5  o3 

«  o 

CM 

©OOOt^USOCMCOrH 
©     CO    CM     CO             O    ■*    N    W 

00 

O      1^      CM      rH 

O     CM    1^ 

T-t 

h»         03 
Z         03 

- 

| 

OOOOOOOOO 

ooooooooo 

US     t>-_    ©    ■*    "*    00    ©_   tH    CD 

.   UJ     ffl    115     C»    H    M    O    N    TtT 

o 
o 

OO 

o  o  o  o 

o  o  o  o 

00     CO    CO    CM 

8  tC  S 

"1 
'« 

7 
I 
( 
[ 

I 

3 

s 

3 
S 

D 
I 

3 

1 

t 

5 

c 

V 

a 

V 

0. 

1 

a 

c 

5 

•2 

a. 

rC 

c 
or 

S3 
C 

pq 
a 

s 

< 

B 

c 

a 

a. 

rC 

c 

V 

T 
P 

0. 

? 

EH 

1 

1 

r- 

c 
£ 

e 
c 

rC 

g 

c 

I 

1 

G 

E 

a 

V 

'5 

X 
a 

9 
X 

c 
c 

1 

c 

'1 

D 

1 

z 

C 

ulturist 

ndustrj 

Year 

ablishec 

■5— 

■a"1   «3 

■J.|fM 

ui  u 

^^03 
03^X!    > 

CM  73 
1     03 

2  » 

^    03    03    C 

C30.2 

o  o  5  M 

rH      rH 
03     03 

5S 

^■r§§& 

&■£  vol 
,0  O  o3  0 

■**    03 

S5^0 

«~-rCl 

rt"o3"^    03 

«°Q 

s^^-^ 

rO         • 

^3  03  u  o3 

£-ll 

«'E 

fl   fl-r-  O 

«2m 

0,        03Q 

0)  43 

73  O 

s  o) 

g&sd 

,o« 

«  F  o3  T; 

so 

^CO    3-d 

C  £  l! 

03-r3 
•5  « 

■J2£fl 

oS 

Hr>     01 

hSO 

03  ^ 

>>«!    ^   fcS 

g'S  • 

rQ^      03^ 

S- 0 

"3  ° 

03-o  0  03 

03  03  to 

— ■-C'rH 

03-^  J 

03—    O 

-3-h   o3 

aa'^ 

Mco  03  r^. 

OOi= 
^to"S 

a 

12^5 

03 

r-l 

0 

Is  2  g 
■1  11  •- 

CO    03    03 

03  >>fc  °° 

g  3  s 

u 

03 

31 

MrQ     M 

x 

s 

03    03    03 

«  2  fc 

03  M  a 

03 

0«T3   O 

£^^ 

>> 

m    CO    03  — 

S    302-3*ts 

s5§2^l|§: 

O,-^    -'n-i    03    O    H    03 

••CSS-           ^SrQ 

a 

J 

(H 
P< 
03 
Eh 

to 

i  *  >>T3 

T3 
G 
03 

US 

O 

r3 

••in  03  52_  r-n  03  03 
oS1^  G  gT3  03^  ^us 
+5           03    ^    03    b           03<M 
03     .«  !>>93  3     .Oo> 

73coM  tu^p^^T1 

8^1sS^SS 

Q 

3       3t3S^ 
C»      O  03-H.5 


48  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

showing  an  increase  in  shipments  in  1926  over  1925.  The  movement 
increased  in  1926  to  11,500  cars,  equal  to  18  per  cent  of  the  state's 
shipments  and  48  per  cent  of  the  total  of  table  varieties. 

Tokays  have  long  stood  second  among  the  varieties  making  up 
California's  table-grape  shipments.  The  movement  increased  nearly 
30  per  cent  from  1919  to  1925,  rising  from  5,600  carloads  to  7,100, 
which  number  accounted  for  slightly  less  than  10  per  cent  of  all 
shipments  and  nearly  30  per  cent  of  those  of  table  varieties.  Ship- 
ments of  Tokays  in  1926  fell  to  about  5,900  carloads.  Although 
second  among  table  varieties,  Tokay  shipments  in  1925  were  exceeded 
in  number,  not  only  by  Malagas,  but  also  by  Muscats,  Zinfandels,  and 
Thompson  Seedless  (Sultanina).  In  1926,  however,  Tokays  exceeded 
Thompson  Seedless  shipments,  but  were  for  the  first  time  exceeded  by 
Alicante  Bouschet,  which  probably  will  continue  to  hold  a  rank  above 
Tokays  in  volume  of  movement. 

Shipments  of  Emperor,  third  among  California  table-grape  varie- 
ties, increased  at  the  most  rapid  rate  of  any  of  these  varieties  from 
1919  to  1925.  Shipments  of  4,900  cars  in  1925  were  over  eight  times 
the  600  shipped  in  1919  and  gave  Emperors  a  rank  of  sixth  among 
all  the  varieties  shipped  that  year.  Approximately  4,400  carloads 
rolled  from  the  state  in  1926.  Emperor  shipments  constituted  slightly 
over  6  per  cent  of  California's  movement  of  all  grapes  in  1925  and 
20  per  cent  of  that  of  table  varieties  only.  In  1926  these  percentages 
were  approximately  7  and  18. 

About  1,800  cars  of  other  varieties  of  table  grapes  were  shipped 
from  California  in  1925  and  approximately  2,100  in  1926,  compared 
with  about  300  cars  in  1919.  Cornichon  is  apparently  the  most  im- 
portant variety  among  this  group. 

Wine-Grape  Shipments  by  Varieties,  1925  and  1926. — Shipments 
of  only  two  varieties  of  wine  grapes  are  given  separately  in  1925. 
Nearly  9,700  carloads  of  Zinfandels  are  estimated  to  have  moved 
from  the  state  in  that  year  and  about  5,000  cars  of  Alicante  Bouschet. 
Zinfandels  made  up  around  13  per  cent  of  all  grape  shipments  from 
California  in  1925  and  about  38  per  cent  of  the  wine  grapes.  Alicante 
Bouschet  constituted  slightly  less  than  7  per  cent  of  the  state's  total 
shipments  of  all  varieties  during  the  same  season  and  nearly  20  per 
cent  of  the  wine  grapes.  Among  wine  grapes,  the  rank  of  these  two 
varieties  was  probably  the  same  in  1919  as  in  1925.  Records  of  a 
large  part  of  grape  sales  on  the  eastern  delivered-auction  markets  for 
the  years  1924  to  1926  indicate  that  the  production  of  Alicantes  has 
probably  been  increasing  faster  since  1919  than  the  output  of  any 


BUL.  429]  ECONOMIC  STATUS  OF   THE  GRAPE   INDUSTRY  49 

other  variety  of  wine  grapes.  The  big  price  differential  which  has 
prevailed  since  1917  in  favor  of  this  variety  has  apparently  resulted 
in  a  more  rapid  expansion  in  plantings  of  Alicante  than  of  any  other 
variety  of  wine  grapes. 

Shipments  of  all  other  black  varieties  of  wine  grapes  were  nearly 
as  large  as  the  carlot  movement  of  Zinfandels  in  1925,  and  probably 
have  borne  somewhat  the  same  relation  to  Zinfandels  for  several  years. 
Judging  from  available  records  of  eastern  delivered-auction  sales,  the 
chief  varieties  of  black  wine  grapes  making  up  this  group  are  Mission, 
Carignane,  Mataro,  and  Petite  Sirah,  in  approximately  the  order  of 
their  importance  in  the  last  three  years. 

Shipments  of  white  wine  varieties  from  California  have  never  been 
large.  Eastern  demand  is  almost  entirely  for  black  wine  grapes,  and 
' '  vineyardists  who  grow  white  wine  grapes  have  had  difficulty  in  dis- 
posing of  their  crops  and  many  have  pulled  up  their  vines  or  grafted 
them  over,  where  possible,  to  black  varieties."16 


CALIFORNIA  SHIPMENTS  OF  JUICE  STOCK  AND  TABLE  STOCK 

Rapid  Increase  in  Shipments  of  Juice  Stock. — As  is  commonly 
known,  much  of  the  great  increase  in  fresh-grape  shipments  since  the 
war  has  consisted  of  juice  stock,17  that  is,  grapes  packed  for,  or  prob- 
ably used  for,  wine-making  purposes  in  the  home.  The  first  available 
estimate  of  shipments  of  juice  stock  indicates  that  in  1921  nearly 
20,000  carloads  originated  in  California,  constituting  60  per  cent  of 
the  state's  grape  shipments  in  that  year.  From  1921  to  1925  Cali- 
fornia's shipments  of  juice  stock  increased  approximately  170  per 
cent,  while  shipments  of  table  stock  increased  only  about  60  per  cent. 
The  estimated  54,000  cars  of  juice  stock  shipped  in  1925  constituted 
approximately  70  per  cent  of  the  season's  total  movement  of  over 
76,000  carloads.  Although  the  number  of  carloads  of  juice  stock 
shipped  in  1926  was  less  than  in  1925,  being  roughly  44,000  carloads, 
they  constituted  a  slightly  larger  percentage  of  all  shipments  than 
in  1925. 


!6  Stoll,  H.  F.  The  merits  of  our  white  wine  grapes.  California  Grape  Grower, 
59:  8.     Sept.  1,  1924. 

17  Those  familiar  with  the  marketing  of  California  grapes  will  realize  that  an 
attempt  to  separate  grape  shipments  into  juice  stock  and  table  stock,  as  has  been 
done  in  table  9,  can,  at  best,  result  in  very  approximate  figures  only.  Naturally 
all  wine  varieties  are  juice  stock.  It  is  known  that  nearly  all  Muscats  are  used 
for  juice  purposes.  No  one,  however,  probably  knows  with  any  reasonable  degree 
of  accuracy  what  proportion  of  Thompson  Seedless,  Malagas,  and  Tokays  are 
ultimately  used  as  juice,  and  what  for  eating. 


50  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

Wine  Grapes  Dominate  Juice  Shipments.18 — Figure  13  helps  to 
visualize  the  volume  of  the  different  classes  of  grapes  which  made 
up  juice-stock  shipments  in  1921  and  in  1925. 19  In  both  of  these 
years  wine  varieties  constituted  a  larger  proportion  of  the  total  than 
either  raisin  varieties,  which  were  second  in  importance,  or  table 
varieties,  which  held  a  relatively  unimportant  third  place.  Shipments 
of  wine-grape  varieties,  which,  in  1921,  were  about  15,000  cars,  in- 
creased to  about  25,500  carloads  in  1925  and  in  1926,  constituting 
an  increase  of  about  70  per  cent.  The  percentage  of  juice  stock  com- 
posed of  wine-grape  varieties  in  1921  was  about  76  per  cent,  in  1925 
only  47,  and  in  1926  around  58  per  cent.  The  low  percentage  in  1925 
was  largely  due  to  the  abnormally  heavy  shipments  of  raisin  grapes 
for  juice  purposes  and,  in  small  part,  to  the  steadily  increasing  volume 
of  table-grape  varieties  designed  for  juice  purposes. 


Cafi-fornia  Shipments  of  Juice    Grapes    By  Classes,  J 9Z  1+1925. 
/9Zt  -  mn                                                                                           /9Z5-  wmE^ 

, 

tJZf       ,X50                     S                    IO                    15                  ZO                  Z5                 30 

Wine        I5.Z     25.5 
Raisin      3.3     21.7 
Tabia        J  A      7  / 
Tcrtal      f9.9     54.3 

Fig.  13. — California  juice-stock  shipments  in  1925  were  about  2.7  times  those 
of  1921.  Wine  grapes  contribute  the  most  juice  stock,  with  raisin  grapes  second 
in  importance.     (Data  from  table  9,  p.  54.) 

Rapid  Increase  in  Raisin-Grape  Shipments  Largely  for  Juice 
Purposes. — From  a  few  cars  of  Thompson  Seedless  (Sultanina) 
shipped  for  table  use  in  1917,  shipments  of  fresh  raisin  grapes  had  by 
1925  increased  to  a  maximum  of  over  26,000  carloads  (local  and 
interstate),  constituting  35  per  cent  of  California's  total  grape  ship- 
ments. (See  fig.  14.)  Approximately  80  per  cent  of  this  great  total 
of  raisin  grapes  in  1925  probably  was  used  for  juice  purposes.  Raisin 
grapes  constituted  40  per  cent  of  juice-stock  shipments  in  1925,  as 
compared  with  about  17  per  cent  in  1921.  Shipments  of  fresh  raisin 
grapes  for  all  purposes  in  1925  were  over  five  and  a  half  times  the 
4,700  carloads  moved  in  1921. 


i«For  a  discussion  of  shipments  of  wine  grapes  by  varieties  in  1925  and 
1926  see  page  45. 

]  o  Figure  13  is  based  upon  the  data  in  table  9  which  are  rough  approxima- 
tions only. 


Bul.  429] 


ECONOMIC   STATUS   OF   THE   GRAPE   INDUSTRY 


51 


Shipments  of  the  Muscat  variety  were  larger  than  those  of  any 
other  variety  of  California  grapes  in  1925,  and  the  largest  movement 
of  this  variety  in  a  fresh  condition  that  the  state  has  ever  witnessed. 
Probably  19,000  carloads  of  fresh  Muscats  moved  in  this  year,  making 
up  approximately  25  per  cent  of  all  California  grape  shipments,  or 
two-thirds  of  the  fresh  raisin-grape  shipments.  About  7,300  carloads 
of  Thompson  Seedless  grapes  also  moved  from  the  state  in  1925,  con- 


California  Juice  -f  Table -Stock  Shipments  by  l/ariofieSj  1925. 


Juice  Stock 
Tot-oi 
Muscat 
XinTandel 
Other  Blocks 
Alicctn-fe  B. 
Malaga 
Thompson  5. 
Tokay 


Other  Whites  1.4 


Thousands  erf  Carloads 
20  3Q  40 


SO 


Emperor 

Table  Stock 
Total 

Malaga 
Tokay 
Emperor 
Thompson 
Muscat- 
Others 
Grand  Total 


30 


40 


50 


60 


Fig.  14. — Muscat  shipments  were  abnormally  heavy  in  1925,  ranking  first  as 
juice  stock  but  followed  closely  by  the  wine  varieties.  Other  varieties  accounted 
for  only  about  20  per  cent  of  the  juice-stock  movement.  Malagas  were  first  among 
table-stock  varieties  but  were  closely  followed  by  Tokays  and  Emperors.  (Data 
from  tables  8  and  9,  pp.  46  and  54.) 

stituting  nearly  10  per  cent  of  all  grape  shipments,  and  one-fourth 
of  the  fresh  raisin-grape  movement.  The  increase  in  fresh  shipments 
of  both  varieties  from  1919  to  1925  was  enormous.  Shipments  of 
Muscats  rose  from  about  1,100  to  over  19,000  carloads,  while  Thomp- 
son Seedless  increased  from  about  600  cars  to  7,300  in  the  same  period. 
In  1926,  however,  California  shipped  only  a  little  over  10,000  car- 
loads of  Muscats  and  about  4,200  of  Thompson  Seedless. 


52  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

The  enormous  movement  of  fresh  raisin  grapes  in  1925,  it  should 
be  noted,  can  not  be  considered  representative  of  what  should  be 
expected  one  year  with  another.  A  combination  of  circumstances, 
including  low  prices  of  raisins  since  1922  and  a  considerable  demand 
for  raisin  grapes  as  juice  stock  in  eastern  markets  for  several  years, 
led  to  the  shipping  of  nearly  11,000  more  cars  of  fresh  raisin  grapes 
in  1925  than  in  1924.  Judging  from  the  disastrous  effects  of  the  over- 
supply  of  juice  stock  on  eastern  markets  in  1925,  it  would  seem  that 
the  volume  of  fresh  raisin-grape  shipments  in  that  year  may  be  con- 
sidered as  an  abnormal  and  undesirable  maximum  which,  no  doubt, 
can  be  duplicated  again,  but  obviously  should  not  be  unless  the  market 
demand  for  juice  stock  shows  a  remarkable  and  unexpected  expansion. 
Estimates  show  that  less  than  15,000  carloads  were  shipped  in  1926. 
The  decline  in  fresh  raisin-grape  shipments  in  1926  to  about  the  same 
volume  as  in  1924  would  seem  to  indicate  that  many  growers  consider 
the  returns  which  they  received  or  expected  they  might  receive  for 
raisins  (dried)  preferable  to  the  returns  from  fresh  raisin  grapes 
shipped  in  1925.  An  approximate  basis  for  comparing  prices  for 
fresh  raisin  grapes  with  those  for  raisins  (dried)  is  indicated  in  foot- 
note number  49,  page  93. 

Table  Varieties  Are  Least  Important  as  Juice  Stock  hut  Increasing 
Rapidly. — Figure  14  shows  that  shipments  of  table-grape  varieties  as 
juice  stock  have  increased  considerably  in  recent  years,  the  1925 
movement  of  about  7,100  carloads  being  about  five  times  the  1,400 
carloads  moved  in  1921,  and  accounting  for  30  per  cent  of  the  volume 
of  all  table-grape  varieties  shipped,  as  compared  with  10  per  cent  in 
1921.  The  1926  movement  of  these  varieties  as  juice  stock  from  Cali- 
fornia amounted  to  about  8,200  cars,  or  approximately  34  per  cent 
of  table  varieties  shipped  for  all  purposes.  In  1921  about  7  per  cent 
of  juice-stock  shipments  consisted  of  table  varieties,  whereas  the  per- 
centage had  risen  to  13  in  1925,  and  was  over  18  in  1926. 

Rapid  Increase  in  Malaga  Juice-Stock  Movement. — Malagas  con- 
stituted nearly  65  per  cent  of  the  1925  movement  of  table  varieties 
as  juice  stock,  and  Tokays  about  28  per  cent.  Much  of  the  relatively 
rapid  increase  in  table  varieties  shipped  for  juice  purposes  in  recent 
years  is  accounted  for  by  the  growing  proportion  of  the  expanding 
Malaga  production  which  has  been  shipped  for  this  purpose  in  recent 
years.  An  estimated  1,000  cars  of  Malagas  shipped  as  juice  stock  in 
1921  constituted  only  about  20  per  cent  of  total  Malaga  shipments  for 
that  year.  In  1925  Malaga  juice  shipments  of  about  4,800  cars  were 
about  48  per  cent  of  the  total  Malaga  movement.    Malaga  shipments 


BUL.  429]  ECONOMIC  STATUS  OF  THE  GRAPE  INDUSTRY  53 

for  juice  purposes  in  1926  were  about  50  per  cent  greater  than  in 
1925,  accounting  for  over  60  per  cent  of  shipments  of  this  variety.20 

Juice  Stock  by  Varieties,  1925  and  1926. — Reference  to  figure  14 
shows  estimates  of  the  number  of  cars  of  each  variety  of  grapes 
shipped  for  juice  purposes  during  the  season  of  1925.  (See  table  9.) 
Muscat  shipments  constituted  over  30  per  cent  of  the  juice-stock  move- 
ment, and  Zinfandels  about  18  per  cent.  The  volume  of  all  other 
black  wine-grape  varieties  shipped  in  1925  was  practically  the  same 
as  of  Zinfandels.  Alicante  Bouschet  shipments  amounted  to  nearly 
10  per  cent  of  the  juice  stock,  followed  by  Malagas  with  about  9  per 
cent  and  Thompson  Seedless  with  eight.  Only  3  per. cent  of  juice 
stock  was  composed  of  Tokays.  Emperor  grapes,  the  most  of  which 
roll  after  the  eastern  wine-making  season  is  over,  accounted  for  less 
than  1  per  cent  of  the  total  juice  stock. 

Comparison  of  data  for  1925  with  those  for  1926,  as  shown  in 
table  9,  brings  out  changes  in  the  relative  movement  of  the  varieties 
making  up  juice  stock.  ' '  Other  black  wine  grapes ' '  are  first,  Muscats 
second,  Alicante  Bouschets  third,  Zinfandels  fourth,  Malagas  fifth, 
and  Thompson  Seedless  sixth. 

California  Table-Stock  Shipments  by  Varieties,  1925  and  1926. — 
The  lower  half  of  figure  14  shows  approximate  shipments  of  table 
stock  by  varieties  in  1925.  So  few  Emperors  are  used  for  juice  pur- 
poses, and  so  large  a  part  of  Malagas,  that  Emperor  shipments  as  table 
stock  rank  first,  followed  by  Malagas,  Tokays,  Thompson  Seedless 
(Sultanina),  Muscats,21  and  miscellaneous  varieties  listed  in  their 
order  of  importance.  These  varieties  held  the  same  rank  in  shipments 
of  table  stock  in  1926  as  in  1925. 

MONTHLY   VARIATION    IN    SHIPMENTS 

Purpose  of  Analysis. — A  knowledge  of  the  seasonal  variation  in 
movement  of  perishables  day  by  day,  week  by  week,  and  month  by 
month,  during  each  season  is  helpful  in  understanding  the  chang- 
ing conditions  of  supply  which  affect  current  prices  and  market- 
distribution  problems.  Such  data,  likewise,  are  valuable  as  an  aid 
to  visualizing  certain  phases  of  the  transportation  problems  involved 
in  moving  the  enormous  tonnage  of  grapes  and  other  perishables  from 
California  in  a  few  months  of  the  year. 

20  U.  S.  Bur.  Agr.  Econ.,  mimeographed  Daily  Market  Keport  on  California 
Grapes,  No.  80 :  5.  Nov.  6,  1926.  It  is  estimated  that  dried  Malagas,  which 
amounted  to  only  1,500  tons  in  1925,  rose  to  10,000  tons  (dried)  in  1926.  Cali- 
fornia Crop  Keport,  Nov.  11,  1926:  3.      (Mimeo.)      1926. 

21  There  is  no  reliable  estimate  of  the  volume  of  Muscats  which  are  consumed 
for  table  purposes  in  our  eastern  markets. 


54 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


CM 

Ol 

e 

00 

eo 

^ 

to 

o 

eo 

CO 

C3S 

to 

eo 

CO 

at  ■<*<  cm 

t-    CO    00 

rH    o> 

■*   co   ^ 

00    t^ 

t^    CD 

6> 

CM 

03 

£N 

H    h    cq 

rl    H    1C3 

CM 

^H    CM 

*o 

d 

«    M    W 

00     CT>    l~- 

O    00    as 

T»<      O 

O    to 

to 

e>)   co   r^ 

t-    CO    O 

00    CM 

oo   to  o 

o  o 

tO     CM 

CM 

CM     i-H     CM 

iH    i-H    to 

•^     rH     rH 

CM    CM 

i-l    CM 

<o 

o> 

Ph 

CO 
CM 

O    M    » 

M    CD    N 

O    "* 

cocMr-^^Hoor^-Hcocoo 

,_, 

O 

©     rH     00 
O     CO    CD 

t-    ■**     CM 

OO    CO 

r-HOiOOrHCOCDOCOCO© 

OJ 

CO      CM      rH 

o 

-c 

a 

03 

oo<n 

CO     CT>     T* 

rH    O0 

n*ioa*MH^*o 

tO 

Ml 

CM 

O    OO    i-l 

H     H     » 

co   co 

COOSCOCMCDCDOCMCMO 

05 

O     CM    t- 

eo   cm 

o 

^ 

iH 

a 

o    ■ 

©  o  o 

M    rt     N 

OS     O 

03C0CDOCMCMOC0CCC0 

a> 

Ph 

CM 

00 

©  o  o 

O    f    CO 

O    CD    «# 
-*     CO 

tO     CO 

CNCOCOOt^t^OCOCN'-l 

©    CO    •* 
O     CO    CO 

O    CD 

•^©OlrHOCOCNOO© 

CD 

O    CO 

COOOOrtOOJ            oo 

.S-o 

cm 

^ 

** 

1-1 

rH                              ,H                              rH      rH 

«s 

rt 

O  og  co 

co  jtf  eS 

o'"  © 

©  o  o 

O    CM 

OOOOlrHOI-^COOOO 

■>*<    ©    CO    CO    ©    OS            OO 

us 

O   t»   co 

o  to 

"3°  >> 

CM 

05 

CD 

iH 

rt 

rH                              rH                              rH      rH 

""•  CD  -r= 

73   bC  4) 

22  8 

3£ 

©  o  o 

O     C5     rt 

O    00 

05OOOOOOOCD-* 
<— I    O    O             OO             OCDCO 

o3  Sc 

Oi 

tO 

iH 

CD 

§88 

©  o  o 
o  o  o 

o  o 

o  o 

oooooooooo 

ooooooooo 

■* 

H     Ol    Ol 

°l   I».    CM# 

IO     r- 

■**<O5CMt^--<fC0THrHrH 

OJ 

CD 

«*     CT>    Tf 

eo   to"  oo 

rH      Tf 

N    113    IO             ■*    ■*             CM    CM 

tO     rH     Tf 

eq    t-h 

*h 

°s  3 

13  3 

§  8  8 

o  o  o 

O      C 

OOOOOOOOOO 
OOOOOOOOO 

o3_C 

tO 

©    O    O 
CO    N     H 

o  o 

O  ^ 

CM 

CO 

rt     OO     K 

O     CM 

OOrH02CN0200rHOOOO 

o> 

1h   <o 

tO      rH      -* 

WON 

o  *o 

03    ?! 

t>    CN    <C 

C*     r-l 

Oo3 

CD 

fl 

O 

* 

o  o  c 

©  o  o 

o  c 

OOOOOOOOOO 

ooo         oo         ooo 

m  r»(   a 

^     ©_     Tj 

o  c 

CN 

CM 

CO__    CO 

0_    tO_    to             ■*    «*             CM     00    ■"*! 

*H 

W    =1    CT 

eo   ^h    -- 

eo   cm"  ^h 

IO    ^f 

»-T  tjT  tjT        cm"  cm"        i-h" 

4 

I 

T3 

d 

C3 

> 

a 

e 

> 

$ 

£ 

C 

V 

a 

1 

5 

C 

■4 

0 

E- 

1 

% 

c 
6 

'  = 
1- 

DC 

« 

a 

1 

4 

et 

e- 

3 

c 

e. 
c 

2 
E- 

C 
tt 

a 

5 

'5 

*- 

1 

cc 

■ 

2 

t 
c 

c 

1 

a 

a 

6 

— 
c 

c 

t 

r^ 

c 

4« 

c 

I 

1 

a 

e 

'r 

1 

c 
.    a 

9 

1 

7 

a 
t 

J 

c 
> 
a 

I 
c 

r* 

t 
c 
■ 

a 

1 

a 
e 
'E 

) 

I 
} 

1 

s 

Bul.  429] 


ECONOMIC   STATUS   OF   THE   GRAPE   INDUSTRY 


55 


"o 
d 

cu 
P4 

CO 
<M 

OS 

a 

CO    o- 

co   co 

CN 

oe 

- 
c 

0" 

C£ 

CN 

OS 

- 

O     ^    00    l« 

[•   to   lO   oo 

18    CO    *    U3 

r^   ^h  -* 

CN     N    H 

m  "O  in 

00 

co 

la1 
o 

d 

03 

*s 

c 

o 

t-l 

39 

CO 

o 

t-kCcMOCOT*(COOOt^r^^HO             O    O0    t^-    CO     OS 

escococdr^TticoTtH^HOOO         ot-1^h»oo 

eM^-,^-,^                                                                                         ,*      _      ^      ^ 

OS 

OS 

NNlOMlOOOtOOJNnnO            w    oo    (O    M    oo 

lOtocoiciNNOiniiJooo         m   cq   co   n  h 

CO             CM    CM             CM                                                                   CO    »H              ^h 

CM 

00 

0*-HOSOSOOS»— It— <0 

«T3 

o   °3 
O   (0   m 
co  o3  o3 

fl  o3  >_ 

0)    CD    "^ 

CO 
CM 

OS 

t^. 

O-Ti^-iOOOOoOt^OOO            ooooo 

ocMt^ot-iosot^cMoo               ooooo 

CM 

OS 

CO 

ooi-HOOoO'-icnooo         ooooo 

O^OOO^OsO-^lOOO                   ooooo 

CM 

OS 

lO 

ooooooooo 
0    00(^0           o    o    o 

o 
o 

CD 
I* 

-3 

» s 

o3X3 
O  ^ 

03  £ 

OS 
a 

a 
o 

CM 

-f 

oooooooooooo         ooooo 
ooooooooooo              ooooo 

lO    CM    >*    CO_   0_   SO    CM_   i-J_  i-H    »H    i-H                    <©    CO    -<^   o_   CO 

■*"  <(i"  d  d  h"  o  tjT  w  h                         u)  n  n  d 

CM 

OS 

CO 

oooooooooooo         ooooo 
ooooooooooo              ooooo 

(OHNMOl^MOCOCXN                      lO    N    O^    t)<     ■* 

te  ic  ih   a  rn  n"  n  co  ■*                           w"  a  us  o>  h 

CM 

OS 

<M 

ooooooooo 
o  o  o  o         o  o  o 
(-    ■*   co   co          co    ■*    «* 

o 

s 

1-H 

a; 

00 

-T3 
G 
o3 
>■ 

.* 
03 
> 

8 

of 

O 

- 

cc 

4. 

1 

1 

> 

PC 

1 

t 

a 

a 

s 

E- 

1 

t 

c. 

a 

$ 

0 

c 

'/ 

1 

c 

c 

01 

£ 

1 

t 

a 

| 
g 

c 

X 

E- 

,   c 

B 

1 
I 

c 
s 

« 
a 

c 

c 

a 
> 

1 

3 

c 

* 

a 

— 

= 

a 

t 
a 

C 

pc 

a 

s 

t 

J 

c 

«: 

IS 

1- 
a 

C 

sis  g<* 


>  -  s  || 

-£  S  +^>  03  r^ 


°1» 


iJS   ° 

i*3       O 


~&*&£i  c»-Q 


-°  o  Si's 

cjd  3i3-P 
o  o3     .  "g  m 

OO    g    « 

-  ao 


_,    SCO'S  "^      ."" 

g-fl    --S  «  a^ 

R  h  >    .   n     -  cd 


3         ™     .O   O  o3  OJ   03 

O       ^cooO—,  ^M  to 
l?NoS   A«iO  S 

•         -S  N*  CO*  0Q  12  »  'd 

Cd     •         .  •  OJ  "_  i3  ,— '  0 

T  <?  >,  >  a  S  a„c  03 


coOO 

(UN 


eta  a 

03 J3  "    3-5-C   JU       ^ 

g-^^5  o3  a  3  js      « 


<D    3^    CO 
y    -• 


»&^3P§ 


03  PH 


M^O   |   g   « 


_•-«. 


c^Htf 


H    ° 


£—       v  o3  «  coS-3 

_oj     .  cm  ct>       rz3  ^   —  _  • 

^  oo  S3        K  o3  j  2  .5  M 

O  J)  1)  o 


co  O 


13  3 
o  o 

m  03 


£   h£) 


ao 
OS 

03   O 


03  O 
St3 


o  o> 

3   03 


O 
co  "o 


co  o     . 
-  wco 

csa 


coT3  C 

o  a<M 


■*! 

bl 

bl 

T3 

a 

d 

a 

>> 

a  o3 

co 

a 

£3 

>, 

0 

«o 

x: 

i 

-0--5 

§1 


56 


UNIVERSITY   OF    CALIFORNIA — EXPERIMENT    STATION 


Monthly  United  States  Movement. — Of  the  shipments  of  grapes 
originating  in  the  United  States  in  the  last  five  years,  approximately 
98  per  cent  have  moved  in  the  months  of  August,  September,  October, 
and  November.  Slightly  over  80  per  cent  have  originated  in  the  two 
months  of  September  and  October,  nearly  9  per  cent  in  November, 
over  8  per  cent  in  August,  less  than  2  per  cent  in  June  and  July, 
and  only  a  fraction  of  1  per  cent  in  December,  January,  and  Feb- 
ruary.    The  outstanding  importance  of  the  grape  shipments  in  Sep- 


(Jnited  states  Monfh/y  Shipments  oF  Fresh  Fruits 
Compared    with    Grapes 3  Average,  /9£2  ~  1925 


At/  fruits-  f03  9.8  10-8 

Grapes,  United  States.   — 

Grapes j  Ca/ifbr-nia ,  —  —  —  "* 

Mon+hfy  Per  Cent.  California  of  U.S.  Grapes     * 


IS.  7  10.6  1  Thousands 

6.3  OA  V        oi* 

58  0.4-  J    Cat- loads 

90  /OO  ■*•  PerCcn+ 


Fig.  15. — The  bulk  of  summer  fruits  moves  before  the  heavy  shipments  of 
California  grapes  in  September  and  October,  during  which  months  about  65  per 
cent  of  all  United  States  fruit  shipments  are  grapes.  (Data  compiled  from  Crops 
and  Markets,  Monthly  Supplements.     Asterisk  indicates  less  than  0.1.) 


tember  and  October,  compared  with  all  fruit  shipments  (excluding 
apples  and  lemons)  is  shown  in  figure  15. 22  In  the  years  1922  to 
1925,  grapes  constituted  slightly  over  one-half  of  the  movement  of 
fruits  originating  in  the  United  States  in  September,  and  over  three- 
fourths  of  October  shipments.  An  average  of  nearly  28,000  cars  of 
grapes  moved  in  September  and  almost  30,000  in  the  peak  month  of 
October.     (See  table  28,  p.  125.) 


'^  Apple  shipments  are  not  included  in  figure  15  because  of  the  fact  that  ship- 
ments of  apples  in  these  two  months  are  not  an  indication  of  the  amount  that  is 
consumed  currently,  as  large  amounts  move  into  storage  at  this  time.  Lemon 
shipments  are  not  included  because  they  are  used  largely  for  soft  drinks. 


BUL.  429]  ECONOMIC  STATUS  OF  THE  GRAPE   INDUSTRY  57 

Early  California  and  Arizona  Movement,  June  through  August. — 
Since  1920  there  has  been  a  noticeable  increase  in  early  shipments  of 
grapes,  particularly  in  June  and  July.  Early  Malagas  and  Thompson 
Seedless  from  Arizona,  and  especially  from  the  southern  and  central 
districts  of  California,  are  responsible  for  practically  all  of  this 
increase.  Texas,  the  only  other  state  ordinarily  shipping  before 
August  first,  moved  only  about  20  cars  of  early  grapes  in  1926.  The 
volume  of  Arizona's  early  shipments,  although  small,  has  increased 
steadily  and  rapidly  from  less  than  10  cars  five  years  ago  to  somewhat 
less  than  70  in  1926.  In  recent  years  California  has  averaged  about 
5,900  cars  of  grapes  for  the  months  of  June  through  August,  com- 
pared with  4,200  cars  in  the  same  months  of  1920.  About  90  per  cent 
of  the  June  shipments  of  grapes,  which  usually  begin  about  the  middle 
of  the  month,  originated  in  southern  California  and  approximately 
10  per  cent  in  Arizona. 

July  Shipments  Come  Largely  from  California. — Practically  all 
of  the  United  States  grape  shipments  in  July  originated  in  Califor- 
nia, which  shipped  nearly  2,000  cars  in  July,  1926,  compared  with 
less  than  400  in  1920.  About  two-thirds  of  California's  July  ship- 
ments come  from  the  southern  part  of  the  San  Joaquin  Valley,  in  the 
central  district  of  California.  Most  of  the  remaining  third  originate 
in  southern  California,  which  reaches  its  peak  movement  of  early 
grapes  about  the  middle  of  July,  shipments  declining  rapidly  there- 
after until  they  become  unimportant  in  August.  Southern  California 
shipments  increase  somewhat  in  September  and  October,  but  consti- 
tute only  7  or  8  per  cent  of  California's  shipments  during  these  two 
months. 

Increasing  August  Competition  Between  California  and  Central 
West. — Early  eastern  grapes  begin  to  roll  toward  market  in  August. 
In  recent  years  they  have  amounted  to  less  than  10  per  cent  of  the 
United  States  total  shipments  during  this  month.  The  remainder  are 
California  grapes,  about  four-fifths  of  which  originate  in  the  central 
district  and  the  balance  largely  in  the  northern  district.  Figure  16 
shows  that  there  has  been  a  very  substantial  increase  in  August  ship- 
ments of  grapes  from  north  of  Tehachapi  in  recent  years.  The  aver- 
age August  movement  for  the  five  years  before  1920  was  about  2,400 
cars,  and  since  1920  about  4,400  cars.  However,  the  increase  in 
August  shipments,  at  the  rate  of  about  10  per  cent  each  year  since 
1917,  has  been  considerably  less  than  the  yearly  increase  of  about 
18  per  cent  for  total  annual  shipments. 

Increasing  competition  of  Eastern  producers  in  the  early  grape 
markets  may  be  expected,  however,  during  the  next  few  years.    Most 


58 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


of  the  grape  shipments  from  the  central  western  section23  move  in 
August  and  the  early  part  of  September.  The  steady  increase  in  total 
cars  originating  in  this  district  from  less  than  200  in  1919  to  over 
2,000  in  1926,  together  with  the  fact  that  the  total  acreage  of  grapes 
in  this  section  in  1925  was  approximately  double  that  of  1920,  plainly 
indicates  the  probability  of  much  greater  competition  of  August  ship- 
ments from  this  section  with  those  from  California. 


Monthly  Interstate    Shipments    of    California    <5rapes   from 
North  of  Tehachapi,   1909  -  1926 . 

30. 1 , 1 1 , 1 1 1 .30 


zo 


n 

I 

•Sep 

i~emt 

ber^ 

II 

1 1 

1 

1 
1 

I 

1 
\ 

**.»„ 

1 
1 

Oaf 

ober 

t/ 

/ 

-'' 

* 

1 

// 

?mbe 

/ 

\ 

(Aug 

■jsrf 

T.-r 

.... 

mw, 

m  »  ■  ■ 

.»•« 

^*» 

# 

>< 

* 

• 
\ 

Dec 
===== 

/ 

emb 

*  > 

'  s 

* 

- 

Z5 


0 


1909    10       II       IZ       73      14-      15      /<£      17      18       19      ZO      Zl      ZZ     Z3     Z4     Z5    Z6    Z7 


Fig.  16. — The  eastern  demand  for  juice  stock,  comprised  chiefly  of  wine  grapes, 
has  caused  an  enormous  increase,  since  1916,  in  shipments  of  California  grapes 
during  the  months  of  September  and  October.  (Data  are  given  in  thousands  of 
carloads  and  are  from  table  10,  p.  60.) 

Rapid  Growth  in  California's  September  and  October  Shipments. — 
The  major  portion  of  California's  large  increase  in  grape  shipments 
in  recent  years  has  consisted  of  juice  stock.  Shipments,  accordingly, 
have  increased  most  in  September  and  October,  during  which  months 
the  bulk  of  the  juice  grapes  ripen  and  the  demand  for  wine  making 
is  greatest.    Figure  16  shows  the  striking  growth  of  California  inter- 


23  The  states  which  have  been  included  in  this  section  are  Arkansas,  Missouri, 
Iowa,  Kansas,  and  Illinois. 


BUL.  429]  ECONOMIC   STATUS   OF   THE   GRAPE   INDUSTRY  59 

state  shipments  from  north  of  Tehachapi  in  these  two  months.  Before 
1920  shipments  of  grapes  from  this  section  averaged  about  4,000  cars 
and  had  never  exceeded  8,000  cars  in  either  September  or  October. 
Since  1920,  however,  shipments  in  each  of  these  months  have  risen  to 
a  maximum  of  approximately  28,500  cars  in  1925,  averaging  18,000 
in  the  five  years  1921-1925.  The  rapid  increase  in  movement  during 
September  and  October  is  further  illustrated  by  the  fact  that  the  rate 
of  increase  in  shipments  during  these  two  months  has  been  about 
22  per  cent  a  year  since  1917,  compared  with  an  annual  increase  of 
about  18  per  cent. 

The  proportion  of  the  season's  total  grape  shipments  moving  in 
September  and  October,  as  well  as  the  actual  number  of  cars,  has 
increased  substantially  in  recent  years.  (See  fig.  16,  page  58.) 
Approximately  68  per  cent  of  the  season's  interstate  shipments  moved 
from  north  of  Tehachapi  during  these  two  months  in  the  years  1913 
to  1917.  The  rather  flat  curve  at  the  bottom  of  figure  18,  showing 
average  weekly  shipments  for  the  years  1913  to  1917,  when  contrasted 
with  the  steep  curve  of  average  shipments  for  1922-1925,  emphasizes 
the  enormous  growth  which  has  taken  place  in  the  commercial  move- 
ment of  grapes  from  California  in  recent  years. 

California  Major  and  United  States  Secondary  Peak  in  Septem- 
ber.— While  California's  heaviest  movement  of  grapes  occurs  in  Sep- 
tember, the  total  United  States  shipments  during  this  month  are 
usually  second  to  the  peak  movement  during  October.  In  recent 
years,  approximately  28,000  cars  of  grapes  have  originated  in  the 
United  States  in  September,  and  California  has  supplied  nearly  90 
per  cent  of  this  number.  Over  half  of  California's  portion  has  come 
from  the  central  district  and  about  one-third  from  the  northern 
district.  Only  a  very  small  percentage  has  come  from  the  southern 
district.  A  comparison  of  the  1920  curves  with  those  for  1925,  in 
figure  17,  shows  that,  while  the  movement  from  northern  California 
has  increased  rapidly  since  1920,  it  has  been  greatly  exceeded  by  the 
enormous  growth  of  shipments  from  the  central  district. 

Major  United  States  and  Eastern  Peak  in  October. — California's 
only  serious  competition  with  Eastern  grape  shipments  in  the  past 
has  usually  occurred  during  October.  The  heaviest  shipments  of 
Eastern  grapes  occur  in  this  month  and  California's  shipments  are 
at  that  time  nearly  as  large  as  her  peak  movement  in  September.  As 
a  result,  the  total  United  States  movement  of  grapes  is  greater  in 
October  than  in  any  other  month.  In  the  last  five  years  grape  ship- 
ments originating  outside  of  California  in  the  month  of  October  have 


60 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA — EXPERIMENT    STATION 


constituted  about  one-fourth  of  the  total  United   States  shipments, 
averaging  nearly  4,000  cars. 

Rapid  Rate  of  Increase  in  California's  November  Shipments. — 
For  the  five-year  period  before  1920,  November  interstate  grape 
shipments  from  north  of  Tehachapi  amounted  to  nearly  2,000  cars 
per  year,  or  about  400  cars  less  than  the  August  movement.  Since 
1917  the  November  movement  has  increased  at  a  rate  of  about  20 
per  cent  a  year.  November  shipments  for  the  period  1921-1925 
averaged  slightly  over  5,000  cars,  compared  with  4,200  for  the  month 
of  August  during  the  same  years. 

TABLE  10 

California  Interstate  Grape  Shipments  from  North  of  Tehachapi, 
Annual  1895-1926,  Monthly  1903-1926 


An 

nual  shipments,  1895 

-1902 

Year 

1895 

1896 

1897 

1898 

1899 

1900 

1901 

1902 

Carlots 

1,010 

712 

1,100 

734 

847 

825 

966 

1,033 

Monthly  and  annual  shipments,  1903-1926 


Yeir 


1903 
1904 
1905 
1906 
1907 
1908 
1909 
1910 
1911 
1912 
1913 
1914 
1915. 
1916. 
1917. 
1918. 
1919 
1920 
1921 
1922 
1923 
1924 
1925 


July 


2 

21 

1 

2 

7 

74 

40 

131 

84 

5 

120 

97 

49 

65 

4 

139 

444 

279 

151 

196 

255 

574 

637 

1,542 


Aug. 


292 

372 

259 

320 

644 

420 

1,043 

1,146 

965 

978 

1,053 

1,631 

1,074 

2,287 

1,383 

3,628 

2,315 

4,298 

2,811 

3,170 

4,544 

6,055 

4,449 

6,378 


Sept. 


673 

624 

700 

907 

1,429 

1,480 

2,297 

1,910 

1,989 

2,339 

2,310 

3,055 

3,233 

2,870 

4,001 

5,061 

7,267 

8,107 

11,367 

13,828 

17,932 

22,731 

27,154 

23,752 


Oct. 


675 

369 

580 

733 

1,132 

1,511 

1,629 

1,378 

2,396 

2,422 

2,172 

3,025 

3,669 

3,182 

5,636 

6,642 

5,575 

9,264 

12,215 

14,186 

17,461 

16,840 

28,477 

19,801 


Nov. 


160 

65 

62 

90 

248 

332 

863 

379 

930 

585 

678 

952 

1,535 

1,318 

2,806 

888 

3,371 

2,184 

1,974 

5,510 

7,593 

4,597 

5,955 

5.331 


Dec. 


39 
133 

11 
241 
840 
116 
262 
475 


Other 


Total 


1,804 

1,451 

1,602 

2,052 

3,460 

3,819 

5,880 

4,948 

6,374 

6,357 

6,363 

8,773 

9,563 

9,722 

13,944 

16,358 

19,018 

24,280 

28,529 

37,132 

48,626 

50,936 

66,939 

57,295 


Sources  of  data: 

Annual  totals  compiled  from  California  Fruit  News  for  all  years  but  1926,  data  for  which  are  from 
preliminary  releases  by  the  carriers.  Monthly  data  estimated  for  1903-1923  by  applying  to  the  annual 
totals  the  percentage  snipped  each  month  according  to  compilations  of  the  California  Fruit  Distributors 
and  for  1924-1926  compiled  from  data  released  by  carriers  (including  minor  estimates  by  the  authors). 


BUL.  429]  ECONOMIC  STATUS  OF  THE  GRAPE  INDUSTRY  61 

Except  in  the  six-week  period  centering  about  the  middle  of  Octo- 
ber the  California  grower  has,  practically  speaking,  no  competitors 
except  other  growers  within  the  state.  If,  during  the  rest  of  the 
season,  markets  of  the  country  are  depressed  with  an  enormous  volume 
of  competing  supply,  California  shipments  alone  are  to  blame.  A 
decrease  in  Eastern  shipments  alone,  no  matter  how  large,  cannot 
lessen  the  present  market  supply  of  grapes  during  the  rest  of  the 
season  sufficiently  to  appreciably  affect  the  relative  profitableness  or 
unprofitableness  of  shipments  during,  or  before,  this  month. 

Inverse  Relation  between  August  and  November  Shipments. — A 
comparison  of  interstate  shipments  north  of  Tehachapi  in  August  and 
November,  in  figure  16,  shows  an  evident  tendency  toward  inverse 
correlation  since  1914.  In  those  years  in  which  August  shipments 
are  relatively  large  November  shipments  are  small,  or  vice  versa,  when 
August  shipments  are  relatively  light  November  shipments  are  heavy. 
The  degree  of  correlation  is  — 0.7739,24  which  indicates  that  during 
the  period  1914-1926  approximately  60  per  cent  of  the  variation  in 
November  shipments  can  be  accounted  for  by  the  variation  in  August 
shipments.  The  chief  reason  for  August  and  November  shipments 
moving  in  opposite  directions  is  probably  the  fact  that  in  early  seasons 
the  percentage  of  California  grapes  which  mature  and  are  shipped 
in  August  and  also  during  September  and  October,  is  larger  than 
in  seasons  during  which  the  fruit  matures  later.  Thus  a  smaller 
percentage  is  left  to  be  shipped  in  November  in  early  seasons.  On 
the  other  hand,  in  years  when  grapes  are  late  in  maturing,  a  larger 
proportion  of  the  crop  is  shipped  in  November.  The  practical  im- 
portance of  this  relationship  between  August  and  November  shipments 
lies  in  the  ability  to  judge  more  accurately  in  August  what  the  volume 
of  shipments  is  likely  to  be  later  in  the  season,  and  particularly  in 
November.  The  ability  more  accurately  to  visualize  seasonal  move- 
ment in  advance  should  be  of  material  assistance  in  handling  market- 
ing and  transportation  problems  throughout  the  shipping  season. 


24  Calculated  by  the  method  of  first  differences  applied  to  the  percentages  that 
August  and  November  shipments  were  of  the  season's  total  shipments.  For  a 
description  of  this  method  see  Mill,  F.  C,  Statistical  method,  pp.  427-429.     1924. 


62  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


WEEKLY    VARIATION    IN    SHIPMENTS 

In  studying  the  seasonal  movement  of  a  highly  perishable  com- 
modity such  as  grapes,  it  is  essential  to  analyze  weekly  as  well  as 
monthly  shipments.  Differences  in  the  movement  in  various  years 
make  it  difficult  to  construct  a  single  picture  which  is  truly  repre- 
sentative of  weekly  shipments  in  recent  years.  For  this  reason 
seasonal  shipments  for  each  of  the  last  three  years  and  for  1920  are 
shown  separately  in  figure  17. 

Similarity  of  1924  and  1926  United  States  Movement — Weekly 
variations  in  total  shipments  for  the  United  States  exhibit  a  marked 
similarity  in  movement  during  the  two  years  1924  and  1926,  both  of 
which  are  characterized  by  two  peaks.  The  first  occurs  about  the 
middle  of  September  and  is  slightly  lower  than  the  second  peak  in 
the  middle  of  October.  The  two  are  separated  by  a  period  of  three 
or  four  weeks,  during  which  time  shipments  are  noticeably  lower  than 
in  the  two  weeks  of  heaviest  shipments. 

Decisive  Influence  of  California  on  Total  Shipments. — The  manner 
in  which  California's  shipments  have  affected  the  total  weekly  move- 
ment for  the  United  States  as  a  whole,  compared  with  the  volume  of 
shipments  originating  in  all  other  states,  can  readily  be  seen  by  a 
study  of  figure  17.  Shipments  from  the  eastern  states  before  the  first 
of  October  obviously  had  little  influence  in  determining  the  total 
volume  of  movement  in  these  years.  The  United  States  total  move- 
ment practically  coincides  with  California's  weekly  volume  of  ship- 
ments, which  constituted  98  per  cent  of  the  September  peak  in  1924, 
about  94  per  cent  in  1925,  and  92  per  cent  in  1926. 

Outstanding  Importance  of  Central  California.— The  rough  paral- 
lelism between  California's  total  weekly  movement  of  grapes  and  the 
volume  of  shipments  from  the  central  district  of  the  state,  shown  in 
figure  17,  indicates  the  major  influence  which  grape  shipments  from 
this  one  section  of  the  state  have  had  upon  the  total  movement  of  grapes 
originating  in  the  United  States  in  recent  years.  A  comparison  of 
the  volume  of  shipments  from  this  district  in  1920  with  that  in  each 
of  the  last  three  years  brings  out  the  remarkable  increase  which  has 
occurred  since  1920.  The  average  annual  United  States  shipments 
of  grapes  from  1924  to  1926  were  somewhat  less  than  double  those  of 
1920,  whereas  shipments  from  the  central  district  were  fully  three 
times  as  great.  Only  30  per  cent  of  the  country's  total  fresh-grape 
shipments  originated  in  this  district  in  1920,  compared  with  55  to 
60  per  cent  in  recent  years.     Raisin,  table,  and  wine-grape  shipments 


Bul.  429" 


ECONOMIC   STATUS   OF   THE   GRAPE   INDUSTRY 


63 


Week/y  Orape  Shipments  for  the  United  States  and 
Ca/i-fornia  by  Sections ;   /9Z0  v-  f9Z4~ /9Z6 . 


Augus-r 


Sep-+ernber  Oc+ob* 


A/ovamber-     December- , 


June 

July 

Augus-r 

Sep-famber-.     — 

October 

November 

December 

1         1 

I        1        1 

i    i    i    |     i    i    \/A'^ 

\     I        I        I                 I        I        I        I 

I         I 

f9ZS 

United  States  J j 

rs^,  California 

8 

- 

- 

- 

^••2-Nv 

- 

<S 

" 

1  r""^ 

\ 

~ 

— 

i  i 

\ 

_ 

4 

- 

Central- 

v         /       / 

77  z- 

rNorthern 

\ 

VI 

A 

~ 

Z 

V        / 

\_ 

" 

1 L—J— «S 

'           Southern^    ^*n 
x*     \ —      \ 

>,>Ss- 

-      I         I 

•Juns                             sjufu 

Augus-r 

Sep-hembsr- 

October- 

Novernber- 

December 

~ 

I9Z4 

I         1         1 

1         1         1         1 

1         1         1         1 

s 

~ 

- 

~ 

<^7/"tW  5"/o 

feSL          if ^^ 

- 

0 

J^              X 

\.^nA 

-California 

~ 

4 

Central-^ 

X           /»„ 

_ 

C-/  \ 

N   \ 

_ 

z 

f^s 

vr*^ 

lorthern  V 

-:\ 

- 

r> 

I       i 

—wH&f*** 

n..J Lf<..i 

/  Southern v 

.A. 

r""i      i      i 

-<S^_ 

/2    19  ee   3    10    17 

June  Julu 


31      7     14    Zl 
Aug  us -f- 


4      II      18      Z5     Z      9      la     S3    30      <5      13     ZO    Z7      4      II      18     Z5 
■September  Oc+ober  November-  December 


Fig.  17. — California's  only  serious  competition  with  eastern  grape  shipments 
usually  comes  in  October  during  the  peak  movement  of  United  States  shipments 
and  the  secondary  peak  of  California  shipments.     (Data  from  table  11,  p.  64.) 


64 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


u 

CO 

OJ 

t-    CN 

■*    Ol    N 

oc 

oc 

<N    i- 

oc 

PC 

oc 

CN 

to 

"* 

CC 

cr 

«o 

CC 

oc 

CD    (p 

H    IN                        N^WWCSO^HH^OIO^Tll^H 

J3  *5 

00 

CN      1-H 

i-Hi-HCMCOOCTi03»OCOi-H 

7a    03 
O    M 

U» 

fl 

CD 

C-             :   io   •"*! 

tDM»«01NNNi)IK)HOOH 

**  t^ 

CO 

CO 

-HH      CO      C»      1— 1      O      CO 

*MINHN<DCS(0(»H 

pC| 

IN^!OtOtON(NCSlH 

3 

<<* 

o 

CO 

a 

u 

eo 

IN 

COCNCNO-<*IOO»OCOr^H^ioOlOCOCNCOCO 

CD 

o 

5<    — 

COcOt^OlCOI^i— lOCNr^OOCN             i-H 

c3 

,n 

to 

INMONMPl*00U)Hijl 

"3 

0> 

1— 1     CN     CO     CO     CN     1— li-Hi-H 

o 

iH 

o 

5? 

„ 

M5 

«5 
CM 

03 

"3 

o 

>"H 

si 

O 

IC    CO    -H    CO    CO    O    i— 

0000000203i-IC005Tt*CMCOINt^r-llOCOO 

3 

MUSNNHiaooeo^lHiO^USOONNOO^^N^W             CN 

CO    »«    CO    00    o    -<t 

lOOOCOOiCOiOCOOOOOCNi-Hl^CNi-Hi-H 

sf 

(NCO»0»ClO-^-«*H-^'*CNi-H 

O 

O             :   *r. 

^ONtoooooomoJomnaeoHiNMN^csiNMiiHnM         oi 

'd 

00 

•*      ®      D>     ■<)(      lO      r- <      1^      -H      G 

t 

CO    »0    CO    00    CO    i— ICO»0-H*»0»Q©10»OCOCOCN             CO 

e 

i-H     Tf<     CO     CO     00     1- 

1^ 

lOOSOOikOCOt^cOOt^-CNOOCNi-Hi-H 

O 

B 

COlOOSOSOsf^COCOCOCNi-H 

e*              :    »C 

HNeioiooo*io« 

OC 

OCOt-~OOC005COCOi-H03lOOCO-**<i-HCOCO                CJ5 

CQ'eS 

en 

IDNHlOtOWNfflX 

cc 

r^»OilOOiOi— IOOOC?iOii^»i— 'lOiOCOcOCNI             CO 

eo 

i-H    i-H    -*H    CO    t^    O    CN 

a- 

COOCNUOcOCNCOCNCOOOcNOOCNi-Hi-H 

pi 

eo 

COCOCROOOOf^t^cOCNi-H 

tH 

OiCNi-HOOOCOcOCO 

sc 

t^t^coi-H-^<Oi-H03i^ooco<Nr^i-Hco 

CD    (D 

eo 

CO     .-I     1-H     i-H                t^     OC 

o 

M010)OON050J*OOIOM0010H 

"5^ 

-* 

■*»C>OCOt^-i-Hl^cMCOCOOOcM 
>H     N     N     iH     1-T 

*H 

c 

<H 

CO            i-i    1^ 

0>^!DMMtDU3IN!C 
■HHOCOt^i-HCO^H-Hi- 

o 

^Ht^^OOCOlOO^-HHCN 

CD 

t-                                 1-H 

c 

-H<CO-H<-*<COOOOOIO»-H 

*    «!    *l    CO    M    IN    H 

A 

US 

"3 

eo 

o 

CO 

e 

u 

u» 

HfflOOHHNNtC 

r^ 

i-Hi«cocoeNicooooio>ooa5-«ti 

CD 

in 

i-H    CO             i-H    CM    ->*l     Tf 

oc 

CROOt-hiOOOOCOOOOOCN-HH"*^ 

.2 

^3 

1 

to 

a- 

CT>t^-iOOOt^TtlOOOCOi-H 

'3 

iH 

o 

fc 

„ 

S3 

CD 

el 

OS 

o 

■a 

to 

^MMNOONlOO 

tC 

oor^iooocooi^c©t^-HH>o->*ia5T-ior^ 

i-HCNCOCNOOOC^i-HCNCOOi-HHlOCNOcO 
■rtH-^0500COC01^r-1lO(NOO^<NIN 

CN 

to 

0O<(llCU500NNCi; 

a> 

IN    M    N    0O    N    OO    K 

g 

(N^CONCOW^COCOMHH 

O 

t"                      T-l       I> 

aa)iflfrtiofflo>c)n»oiNijHooTjiHHio»)<i*i*ocio)HOi> 

CN 

*3 

s 

■«*tOco>or^cOi-HCNcocN 

lOI^CNCNi-Ht^OOiOcNCOCOaiCOcNOCO 

HCOIlTjIOOOlOlC 

■^oot^asot^-coooascoi-HO^cNiN 

o 

eo 

■*t><OU5iaifl<OitlCONHH 

to 

00            i-i    t^ 

0500t^l003lO>OCN)»OCnOCO>0>OcM^OiOC<IC<It^COtCO-*C3t^ 

co  "3 

s 

■♦HOtDOO'fNO'- 

CNOl^T-lOCT'COOO^HCOCOt^CM-HHOCO 

Hn^^»»O*00N»H)*^iO00BCDNO»i0WN 

pl 

B" 

"<N»O00t^»OCOCO00COlCCOi-Hi-l 

bfl 

C 

3 
d 

03 

3 

<n   a 

CC 

c^- 

e 

~t 

H* 

oc 

Tf 

oc 

»ct 

CN 

c 

CC 

ec 

C 

CC 

c 

1* 

oc 

ur 

CD 

CJ 

CD 

O                1— 1     i- 

CN                H     H     IN     CO                t-H     CS 

e> 

^HrtCM                             r-ICNCO                 fHCMCM                 1-Hi-HCS 

•3 

3 

1 

cd 

O 

> 

* 

< 

1 

c 

a 
0G 

1 

c 

> 

c 

c 

9 

e 

a 

Bul.  429] 


ECONOMIC   STATUS   OF   THE   GRAPE   INDUSTRY 


65 


73 

CO 

ITS 

CJ 

r~ 

OS 

CO 

lO 

CO 

t~ 

OS 

CO 

CO 

OS 

CTi 

OJ 

CI 

JO 

lO 

o 

-+l 

0)    CO 

C— 

t-i    »-i    os   <— i   in   im   oo   in   Tf   oo    r- i   — i 

Jl  -g 

oo 

—Hi— ICOC©OCOCD©_OOlO>— 1         : 

Sis 

T-T 

^h   of  cm   cm 

G 

-C 

S 

OOCO^HHMOOiOOOOOtDWOONONNOOO 

^H(MOOt^i-HC<I^HCOt^>ra(MOO-HrOOCO'>!t<(M 

o> 

<-h    cm   co   co   <M   i-H    rt                          : 

G 

«-r 

O 

X 

G 

CO 

-G 

•^i 

CM 

MNN^OONHOOOlinHNNMiOM 

t- 

i— iioot^ooa20>ocMOioioa5cOi-< 

es 

HOOMHM^ONHHNitlN 

2 

t- 

e-i 

O 

*-h 

"3 

fc 

(H 

o 

o 



ia 

, 

O 

a 

•# 

anooo*oo«mNOooitiooNooitimooso)(0 

f* 

9 

lOOOmfflOOHOlDOONOOitlOO- HlOOO^OCNi-H 

i— li*<OOOCOCOlOlOCOOOlOOOt>-CDOi— 1 

«# 

i-H 

** 

COlO-^CMO^OiOOCMC^OacOCOr^lOOOOCOcO-^OOac© 

"rt 

"* 

i-H<Moot^.t^or^^cMoooo-^iooait^.t^<io-Hcor~'*e»co>-i 

to 

t-ii— i   io   -■ i   ca   oo   oo   w   rf   "5   -- 1   n   o   w   h    oo   i- 1 

Q 

co                                                            ih   i-T  ej  cJ  eo   m  «   n   h   cq   ih   t^ 

c- 

COOcOW05lOlOCOCOOCXDijO<^lCCO^C^C©lOCOO-*J<OOiCO 

cq  "3 

i-i 

i— (COOOt>-l3~-Hr^--HCOasO-^<OiraOCO.-liO'— IOOCOCNICO<— I 

u»                                         -Hrtio^Hoioocoooc^oo-^tiOTticoasi-i 

pl 

3 

HHWWCOM'*,*'*'*NH 

f-i     73 

<£> 

:00O00i0T-lOOt^O00-HCDC0»0CXIOC0C0O-<*<-H^H00(M^H 

CO    4) 

CO 

•-h                      N'ffflHoo'foiainooiHoaininiN 

A  -g 

«N 

rt^H                rtlNMHNINO^NH 

O    M 

r-t 

i-l    CO    CO     r* 

G 

-G 

s 

TfrtlTllMmO^HaOnOllOMNHOO^IN 

~H     CM     1-H     ^H                CO 

n  o)  ■*   to   »   i- 1                coco»oa2coc<i05CTi-H(M 

c£> 

.-h     r-l                                                 (Mr^THlClCCOCqi-i 

G 

co 

O 

m 

G 

0^ 

CO 

OO    i— <     Oi    CTs    -h    ©     CM    i— iOH00<D000)01Hi- 1    N    (N 

HintOH»tOi|lOOOOOOOONOOOOlOO 

-G 

es 

NNt-H^OOOH^I^OOffl 

a 

(m 

t» 

tHCMtNCNl-Hl-H-i-ll-l 

O 

'S 

% 

tH 

o 

— 

CI 

3a 

c3 

u 

a 

c- 

OlOOOi— linCTicOt^m-^OCMOaO^mi^t-^iOOi-HCMCOlOOO             o> 

h 

es 

»-i(Mi-(05r^ir>oo05to^tiooancococNiOioio020CT>cOT-i^H 

00 

i-ICOi*100t^iO^Hi-iO'-<lOOOOO^lOcOOOOOiOi-H 

G 
D 

O 

co 

rtNMM^nNNnNHrt 

CO 

t- 

^TjiHOOSfflOCSHNOOlOtSinNOlNOlNOOOOOOmOOtOO)             CM 

la 

o> 

COO«OCCI^05(MCO'*iO«0-Hl^-^003CJ3«OiOOOOia>COrHi— I                      i-H 

u 

H(N<jnooooooooH(OHHNiioooin*0!inH 

o 

EH 

U3 

HNiniONffllO'*'*'*NN 

S3 

^*N'#m't<00!H<JIOOWNHO'l<0)010'*tO'*01<OlOOOO             CM 
P5H0001000T(IO^(OiOl'5Ni|(ill(30000(ONIN')lOONHH             t-h 
HM^mOlWOr- iNNNTtllOinOMi- l     i— I     CM    l^    CM 

cc'3 

en 

P3 

©a 
Cfl 

HMiCHONtOlOlOOON'fMH 

M 

a 

t3 

:          T3 

co 

3 

c 

c£ 

3    C 

c 

i   1^ 

^ 

1- 

l> 

Tt 

oc 

-^ 

or 

ir 

e> 

Cr 

cc 

« 

c 

« 

5  e* 

i    G 

3     t- 

-    T 

(i  1- 

■1     0< 

3    if 

co 

<M             »-l    r-l    CM    CO             ^H    CM    CM             ^H    ^H    CM                      »H    CM    CO             r-l    CM    CM             rti-lCN             .„, 

<8 

1 

a 
1 

3  * 

5     ►" 

1 

i 

3 

6 

< 

1 

t 

a 

a 

. 

c 

1 

< 

< 

j 

J 

5 

2  « ^ bS^ 

.2  3- 


•5  S3  o 


gSO 
SO 


i^^>. 


01   ^  Oa   ^   (H    m 


I  CO   o> 

eo 


S    oj   &NJ.    G 

w  a 


M 


if-: 


a  cj  t-  g 
03  G<2  fl 

o  G  a^ 
-  -O 


•  35 


s^ 


6  «C-  Sf.&i 
S  oj°S' 


g-*3   .  00  (h  a 

O  a,  ^_G  ^,_-J3 

tn       ^i*1  w  S  J 
G  _T  c3  to  <l>  a  00 

>    CO 


iSs- 


03 


X' 


St3^  S  £  d  1; 
c3  03  r~l  (1  G  b  O 

to  o  a+^  5P-S  g 
2-^  00" S  -Ja  ^ 

S¥|5|2i 

S  G-"  3  fe  S50 
>a_g  G«  d^ 

O-O  O^  g  g  03 

d  GChJ    CO  "5 


p;  g;        i-5    t3 


Odd; 


oa^i 


;  co ' 


10  j^  o  .+s-+-  a 

00     (3<+H»H.rH      -I  ^ 

d     CO  o3  o3'H_J^;  O 


CO 


i^Q  £d 


a  s  .  8  s^ 
o.&sgoS, 

g^  ag)§  o 

.S«2X--Gr^Xl 


66  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

from  this  section  have  all  increased  enormously,  a  fact  which  is  not 
surprising  when  it  is  remembered  that  central  California  has  long 
been  the  primary  center  of  production  for  Thompson  Seedless,  Mus- 
cats, Malagas,  Tokays,  and  Emperors,  and  also  the  secondary  center 
of  wine-grape  production. 

Weekly  Shipments  from  North  of  Tehachapi,  1922-1926. — Inter- 
state shipments  from  north  of  Tehachapi  have  been  used  in  figure  18 
to  show  the  typical  weekly  variation  in  California  grape  shipments 
because  data  for  this  section  are  the  only  continuous  and  comparable 
series  available  for  the  state  in  years  before,  as  well  as  after,  the  war. 
Since  shipments  of  grapes  from  south  of  Tehachapi  are  not  large 
enough  to  have  any  appreciable  effect  on  the  weekly  movement  from 
the  state  except  in  June  and  July,  when  total  shipments  are  very  small, 
the  weekly  variation  in  shipments  from  north  of  Tehachapi  can  be 
considered  fairly  representative  of  the  interstate  movement  from  the 
whole  state  during  the  rest  of  the  season  when  the  large  majority  of 
the  state's  total  grape  shipments  are  rolled. 

Practically  all  of  the  interstate  shipments  from  north  of  Tehachapi 
normally  move  in  the  weeks  which  fall  in  the  four  months  of  August, 
September,  October,  and  November.  In  the  last  five  years  an  average 
of  only  a  fraction  of  1  per  cent  of  the  season's  total  has  moved  in  the 
first  and  the  last  weeks  pictured  in  figure  18,  whereas  at  the  peak 
of  the  shipping  season  from  10  to  12  per  cent  have  rolled  in  a  single 
week.  The  average  for  1922-1926  shows  a  peak  movement  in  the  last 
week  of  September  of  about  5,400  cars,  equal  to  slightly  over  10  per 
cent  of  the  annual  shipments.  Eastern  demand  for  juice  stock  in  the 
latter  part  of  September  and  in  October  is  largely  responsible  for 
the  heavy  shipments  of  California  grapes  during  this  part  of  the 
season.  A  study  of  table  12  will  bring  out  the  fact  that  the  major 
peak  of  shipments  from  the  state  in  recent  years  has  varied  some- 
what, although  it  usually  occurs  in  the  second,  third,  or  fourth  week 
in  September.  After  a  slight  recession  from  the  heavy  peak  move- 
ment of  the  latter  part  of  September,  shipments  usually  decline 
somewhat  for  about  a  week  and  then  rise  again  to  a  large  but  sec- 
ondary peak  about  the  middle  of  October. 

Comparison  of  P  re-War  and  Post -War  Shipments  from  North  of 
Tehachapi. — Before  the  war,  shipments  of  wine  and  raisin-grape  varie- 
ties for  juice  purposes  had  played  but  little  part  in  swelling  the  total 
of  grape  shipments  from  California.  Much  of  the  tremendous  volume 
of  shipments  in  September  and  October,  1922-1926,  which  are  pic- 
tured in  the  lower  half  of  figure  18,  has  been  the  result  of  the  great 
increase  in  shipments  of  juice  stock  in  recent  years.     The  effect  of 


Bul.  429] 


ECONOMIC   STATUS   OF   THE   GRAPE   INDUSTRY 


67 


such  shipments  in  swelling  the  percentage  of  grapes  shipped  in  Sep- 
tember and  October  is  brought  out  by  the  curves  in  the  upper  half 
of  the  figure. 


Weekly    Interstate  Shipments   o~f  Ca/itbrn/a  Grapes    "from 
Nor-th  of  Tehachapi 
(Averages,    1913  - 1917  arid  /9ZZ  -  I9Z6) 


iz 

Shipments  in 
Percentage  of 
Season's   Total 

- 

1 

/  s 

^>V 

- 

\ 

192Z-I9Z6— 

/ 
7    i 

hS 

- 

'7 

i 

.v        l^~/9/3  -1917 

\     \ 

- 

4 

// 

\        \ 

k 

y^* 

/  y 

1          1          I 

\ 

V 

f 

31  7         14        Zl 


4         II  18         ZS        Z  9  ltd         Z3        30        S  13         ZO        -?7         4 


Shipments   in 
Thousands  of 
Carloads 

- 

- 

- 

- 

I9ZZ  -I9Z6-^ 

- 

- 

- 

- 

1913  ~  1917-^ 

- 

-^ 

N    » ~~* 

■**• 

i          i          i 

^ 

31  7 

July 


14       Zl        Z8 
August- 


7        18        Z5 
■Sep-f-ember- 


9  16        Z3       30 

Oc-f-ober- 


$  13        ZO       Z7         4 

November  Dec- 


Fig.  18. — California  grape  shipments  in  the  six  weeks  from  the  middle  of 
September  to  the  latter  part  of  October  were  over  six  times  as  great  in  the  last 
five  years  as  in  the  years  1913-1917.  Much  of  this  tremendous  increase  is  the 
result  of  the  rapid  growth  in  juice-stock  shipments  in  recent  years.  (Data  from 
table  12,  p.  68.) 

Average  annual  shipments  of  grapes  from  north  of  Tehachapi 
were  five  times  as  great  in  the  last  five  years  as  in  the  years  1913-1917, 
having  increased  from  less  than  9,700  to  slightly  over  52,000  carloads 
a  year.    From  750  to  850  cars  of  grapes  a  week  moved  from  California 


68 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


^ 

d 

O 
U 

0> 

CO 

O 

(ONNO'XHIONHWIOHOIHNWOONIO 

CM 

OS 

*-4 

dHHNcodgddddooaitoNiQnH'He) 

T~' 

Ph 

CM 

05 

'S 

a) 
c3 

e 

ooooooooooooooooooo 

o 

00 

COi-HCO(MCOt^I^-MeMOOCO(M<M-HCO(M<Mt^r^ 

CO 

C0C0C0OI^^HW3-^e0CCt«lt^«5I^C0'*<05>0<M 

CO 

j2 

0) 

e>» 

HHM^IOWIO^^^MNH 

> 

IA 

s 

<] 

o 

^ 

d 

V 

o 

e 

MlOlOMOlOOHOHfflOlOONHOlOOOO^ 

l« 

o 

rtrHrtN^Nd^OOoioOoJfflfflTliiHrtbd 

o 

o 

<U 

»H 

Ph 

CO 
<M 

05 

tS 

§ 

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 

^tO!ONOJOO(OOOHWNO*l001M(Dm 

MXioocoNno>nioNoitooii»nOO^N 

o 

Oi 

00 

CM 

J3 

HW^OO^lfl^lOMMNHH 

c3 

^ 

d 

o 

OOOlHlO^ieoOOOOl^OlHfflMOOOOHilN 

CO 

§ 

OOHHW^NHNNoioiOOOOCOHHod 

o 

o> 

tH 

Cl, 

>o 

CM 

05 

03 

s 

ooooooooooooooooooo 

8 

Tj<0'«*<0'-iOOcMOCOOeoaicDCO'*J<0'*<t^eO 
lOCDt^OCOOCM02COCOCOOCT>lOiOCMt^CM<— 1 

c3 

o> 

jd 

IP 
CO 

rtHmiONOOMlOfflWlONH 

O 

^ 

d 

o 

»!BU}')l«5NSniOOOlO*IOOONOCIH*H 

~H 

1 

O    i-li-IC0«50503(MO00t^00I--Tt<^>-I^HOO 

o 

o> 

PM 

CM 

CT> 

02 

o 

ooooooooooooooooooo 

COCMcOCOOa>-«*<r^iOOOCMOOCMiOC»CMCOOlO 

o 

** 

lO 

c3 

o» 

■^oot^NootooiiNnTiiotiMOOifnoiinN 

_o 

s 

HN^I'jeiO^M^MNN 

c3 

O 

^ 

d 

CD 

o 

H»M*W»(<3tJ010)WlOOOHlOO(10tOM 

OS 

1 

OOHHNnNNOiaoONOOOONlfleCNH 

«H 

ru 

CO 

03 

01 

o 

ooooooooooooooooooo 

o 

co 

CM 

c3 

to 

T(ietOOO)lO00M»O!(DNOltOI»'*(N00 

OS 

_o 

oc 

HHmn^^ccw^WMNHH 

T3 

^t 

c3 

O 

^ 

d 

o 

OOOOHOHNNNHCONIOIOOONNH 

CO 

o 

1 

dodHt)idiON00H00d«M9NNHO 

1—1          1— 1   1— 1 

P-i 

CM 

T3 

o 

ooooooooooooooooooo 

iCOlO>NIS*CON»C00(l^00H00COINC 
COCMCOOOOt-lCOCMOCMr^COt-^CNIOOOC© 

s 

CO 

£3 

»- 

_0 

t- 

i-l»-H<MCMCO'C*<COCO'*f<McMT-l 

co 

c3 

o 

bC 

a 

T3 

d 

(V 

44 

0) 

1 

ft 

o 

T5 

Eh 

HNHiriO()*HIXilO«0)!OnOtOtlJON^ 
CO                i-H     CM     CM                t-l     ,-1     CM                          H     N     W                i-H     CM     CM 

d 
'c3 

i    6 

< 

1 

£ 

a 

a 

. 

1 

c 

> 

c 

c 

a 

e 

K 

Bul.429] 


ECONOMIC  STATUS  OP  THE  GRAPE  INDUSTRY 


69 


_p 

a 

o 

4) 

O             M«NN>*MlSNNaiW*OOOlOi«N*i- 

00 

o 

Cl, 

CO 
03 

03 

03 

o3 
a> 

ooooooooooooooooooe 

M00H«raHU5iOONH(N«5NN'<tlWMIN 

o 

e 

CO 

I 

00                               N»t(IU5^NOOOOOO»OONOU5t1((N 

Is 

> 

en 

6 

< 

.p 

a 

O             OIN10^0a'*lOnra^M(Nl')*NNNC 

e 

OOOC<i^-^ICOCDI^050000t-»t^COCD<MC 

CM 

4) 

©                                                                                                               lH     ^H 

Oh 

t- 

2 

c 

ooooooooooooooooooe 

o 

•«* 

nctif*ooNrtNONncoT)im»ON 

05 

o3 

en 

micoiioiOcoHTiiriiooaiiiom 

CM 

_o 

CO                                                                                    l-T   r-T   iH    i-T  »H    1-?  1-1 

03 

O 

^ 

d 
8 

e 

NilOOHtOHHOOOOlOWMOlHMMNNC 

o 

| 

dcqioNfflfiooNNwioNoeiwoioHdo 

o 

Ah 

CO 

03 

^3 

e 

ooooooooooooooooooe 

tO^NOlilOOOtOlflNrtHNOHNNM 

o 

«s 

c8 

t- 

MlOtBCOMSNNOOl«N»N!OUJH 

H 

d 

o3 

o 

^J 

a 
8 

h 
4) 

a 

osoor^ooooof^-ooiMOOiMeqe^r-iooooc: 

CO 

| 

OHHN^C0N000)0>»ffl0i»N<*N6c 

o 

W 

>n 

on 

s 

o 

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOC 

o 

<£ 

HHNMCI3N000001000000NCOWM 

CO 

irt 

o 

"7^ 

Ol 

03 

u 

+, 

C 

o 
h 

0) 

a 

iO<M0000005i-H05^05»O^Ht005^fOi-IOO(^ 

~* 

| 

OHM^i(llI)«000ieN0>»!B*M(i3NC 

o 

Ph 

«. 

03 

t! 

e 

ooooooooooooooooooe 

»0    O    T*<    CO    lO     CM     .— lt^(N.-lcOCTi»0>— I0505t^-**CC 

o 

c- 

t- 

HW*WlONNO0!D!DNNenMNIN 

o 

oe 

H 

03 

O 

^ 

a 

4> 

o 

e 

0<NCO^tlOi-ltOOOC©C»e©0<-ICNIOOOilOkOlC 

CO 

| 

HINW'f^ll5N»obo(iN«0()NlONMHO 

o 

0) 

Ph 

eo 

OS 

t§ 

s 

ooooooooooooooooooc 

o 

3 

Nill«iOOO!C<300COTt(!OMHf)iONO!INaiCC 

CM 

5 

c/- 

rtfJMNW^iCiOlO^lOlOfnHN 

O 

(1 

T* 

03 

O 

M 

C 

-c 

d 

a> 

4) 
03 

3 

t- 

& 

o 

T- 

>* 

oc 

«* 

oc 

l« 

CM 

a 

cC 

ec 

o 

CC 

cc 

o 

■* 

CO             rt     CM    CNJ             i-H    .-H    <M                      i-H    <M    CO             i-l    <M    CM 

'3 

i   b 

1 

0 
93 
0Q 

c 

> 

c 

c 

03 

Q 

s 

a 

J        cu  d  03 
o  u  03 

1  *H 
I  il! 

p-H  03-~     l-l 

»       «  *£ 

**      fa  fl  S 

u     g-~  a 

■M  (D    03    C 

"3     _£_  o 

H      ■**  a) 
s«o 


o 


i?J 


DO  CC+» 
fl  S3 

OB  t<  "S 

s  lis: 

s  ^»^ 

O  ft' 


O   fcj 


a.. 


«0    r<    03 

n  S  u 
o  ft  g 

'*H  83  ft 

tZJ  03 
^§£ 

§     .5^ 
S      «  d  ft 

«         «S    Be© 

O       ^3  ft 

H         <J    03^ 

s  s 


2  $  a 
III 

3.""  8> 


ira 


d  03       ft^ 

oj  a-^3  ft  o 


en  <D  Pj 


.•8 


a)  q  02  £3  o3 


OJ    g^CO    C3 
l8|-§g^ 

O    tj    Jh    g 

•S^olSgij 
..    oj  OS    C3-1    S-Q 

o3  w—1  pj  M-a  _oJ 


S  o 


«  >>c^a 


O  -d  -|S    03    (h    4)    _ 


^5 
So- 


70 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


in  the  six  weeks  from  the  middle  of  September  to  the  latter  part  of 
October  during  the  period  1913-1917,  averaging  about  800  cars. 
From  1922  to  1926  the  weekly  movement  during  this  period  averaged 
nearly  5,000  cars,  varying  from  about  4,500  cars  to  over  5,400  cars  in 
the  week  of  peak  movement.  In  other  words,  average  shipments 
during  this  six-week  period  were  over  six  times  as  great  from  1922 
to  1926  as  they  were  from  1913  to  1917. 


Estimated    Weekit/  Shipments  of  California   Grapes    as   Juice 
and  as    Table   Stock  ,    I9Z5  and  1926. 


19 

25 

Juice 

Stock?] 

- 

- 

/       Table 

r 

1       1       1       1 

y 

i  i  i 

1       0 

I9Z6 


Ju/'ce  STock 


Aug. 


^   5    cQ   « 
Sept.       | 


o>   iS   §   %   ^ 


Oc-f-. 


Jui'ce 


Tabled 


/Table  Stack 

I I L_l I L_ 


ro 


*  ^  5i  &  ^ 
Oci:         i   /Vb</- 


Q    Q    Q    <    (^i    Vj    la    l<i    ^ 


*0  <3  <0  <S 

<0  ^f  C^  ty 

<9  <9  <a  <o  to  «a 

cS  si  3  <  <  <3 


Fig.  19. — Juice  stock  shipments  of  California  grapes  were  nearly  four  times 
as  great  as  the  movement  of  table  stock  in  1925  and  1926.  The  rapid  rise  of 
juice-stock  shipments  in  September  and  the  sudden  decline  in  October  are  in 
marked  contrast  to  the  relatively  uniform  movement  of  table  stock  throughout 
most  of  the  shipping  season.  (Data  for  1925  from  Schultz,  C.  E.  California 
Grape  Deal  for  1925:48,  49  (mimeo.)  July,  1926;  and  for  1926  from  U.  S.  Bur. 
Agr.  Econ.,  Daily  Market  Eeport  on  California  Grapes,  No.  80:5  (mimeo.)  Nov. 
6,  1926.) 


Weekly  Shipments  of  Table  and  Juice  Stock,  1925  and  1926. — 
Estimates  of  the  weekly  shipments  of  table  grapes  and  of  juice  grapes 
were  first  shown  separately  for  the  1925  crop.  The  striking  difference 
in  the  weekly  movement  of  the  two  kinds  of  grapes  during  most  of 
the  1925  and  1926  seasons  is  shown  in  figure  19.  Table  stock  moved 
in  relatively  uniform  amounts  during  the  bulk  of  both  seasons.  Dur- 
ing the  season  of  1925,  however,  they  showed  a  gradual  increase — 
except  for  some  slight  ups  and  downs — until  the  peak  movement  of 


Bul.  429] 


ECONOMIC   STATUS   OF   THE   GRAPE   INDUSTRY 


71 


about  1,900  cars  was  reached  in  the  first  week  of  November.  In  1926 
the  peak  of  table-stock  shipments  came  in  the  middle  of  September. 
The  rapid  rise  and  sudden  decline  in  the  shipments  of  juice  stock 
in  September  and  October  of  both  years  was  in  sharp  contrast  to 
the  relatively  uniform  movement  of  table  stock  during  the  bulk  of 
the  shipping  season.  The  decline  in  1926  during  October  was,  how- 
ever, not  nearly  as  precipitous  as  in  1925.  In  the  last  week  of  Septem- 
ber, 1925,  at  the  height  of  the  movement  of  juice  stock,  nearly  9,500 
cars  were  shipped  from  the  state.  In  1926,  the  much  lower  peak  of 
nearly  6,500  cars  came  in  the  middle  of  September  and  was  relatively 
uniform  for  seven  or  eight  weeks,  maintaining  itself  longer  than  in 
1925.  The  average  of  table-stock  shipments  for  the  fifteen  weeks 
pictured  in  1925  was  less  than  1,000  cars  per  week,  whereas  over  3,700 
cars  per  week  of  juice  stock  moved  during  the  same  period.  Average 
weekly  shipments  of  table  stock  during  the  fourteen  weeks  of  1926 
were  less  than  800  cars,  compared  with  nearly  3,300  cars  of  juice  stock. 

TABLE  13 
Estimated  Weekly   Carload   Shipments   of   California   Grapes   by   Classes, 

1925  and  1926 


1925 


1926 


Week  ending 

Season's  total 
through  Nov.  13 

Prior  to  Aug.  1 

Aug.  1  through 
Nov.  13 

Aug.     7 

14 

21 

28 

Sept.    4 

11 

18 

25 

Oct.      2 

9 

16 

23 

30 

Nov.     6 

13 


Total 


71,457 


1,142 

70,315 

662 
761 
949 
1,521 
2,852 
5,064 
7,915 
9,255 
9,481 
7,458 
6,808 
6,616 
6,034 
3,431 
1,508 


Wine 


28,218 


0 

28,218 

81 

87 

261 

596 

970 

1,637 

4,066 

4,786 

5,057 

3,716 

2,825 

2,135 

1,373 

565 

63 


Raisin 


24,861 


700 

24,161 

198 

223 

217 

513 

1,333 

2,458 

2,840 

3,402 

3,468 

2,726 

2,301 

2,404 

1,570 

378 

130 


Table 


18,378 


442 

17,936 

383 

451 

471 

412 

549 

969 

1,009 

1,067 

956 

1,016 

1,682 

2,077 

3,091 

2,488 

1,315 


Week  ending 

Season's  total 
through  Nov.  2 

Prior  to  July  28... 
July  28  through 
Nov.  2 

Aug.     3 

10 

17 

24 

31 

Sept.    7 

14 

21 

28 

Oct.      5 

12 

19 

26 

Nov.     2 


Total 


58,716 


1,655 

57,061 

856 
904 
1,072 
1,626 
3,178 
5,908 
8,119 
5,935 
5,437 
4,998 
5,874 
5,847 
3,705 
3,602 


Wine 


27,882 


11 
27,871 


281 

530 

1,026 

1,956 

3,445 

4,178 

3,570 

3,506 

3,173 

2,988 

1,896 

912 

320 


Raisin 


14,436 


1,109 

13,327 

466 

275 

233 

341 

763 

1,738 

2,781 

1,480 

1,311 

1,382 

1,573 

708 

173 

103 


Table 


16,398 


535 

15,863 

300 

348 

309 

259 

459 

725 

1,160 

885 

620 

443 

1,313 

3,243 

2,620 

3,179 


Estimates  made  by  C.  E.  Schultz,  U.  S.  Bureau  of  Agricultural  Economics  "by  applying  the  per- 
centages of  various  varieties  and  classes  inspected  by  the  Federal-State  Inspection  Service,  to  the  total 
shipments  of  each  week.  Inspectors  reported  a  comparatively  light  certification  of  Tokays  and  con- 
sequently this  variety  [as  well  as  certain  others]  was  checked  against  County  Horticultural  Commis- 
sioners reports"  and  these  figures  used  to  correct  the  estimates  based  on  the  Federal-State  Inspection 
Service  records.  Data  for  1925  from  Schultz,  C.  E.,  mimeographed  California  Grape  Deal  for  1925,  p. 
48,  49  except  that  estimate  for  week  ending  Nov.  13  was  made  by  the  authors;  for  1926  from  unpublished 
estimates  by  Mr.  Schultz  similar  to  those  for  1925. 


72 


UNIVERSITY   OF    CALIFORNIA — EXPERIMENT    STATION 


Weekly  Shipments  of  California  Grapes  by  Classes,  1925  and 
1926. — Figure  20  shows  that  heavy  shipments  of  wine  and  raisin 
varieties  largely  account  for  California's  tremendous  shipments  of 
grapes  from  the  middle  of  September  to  the  latter  part  of  October. 
During  the  last  four  weeks  in  September  of  the  past  two  years  from 
85  to  90  per  cent  of  California's  grape  shipments  have  been  of  wine 
and  raisin  varieties.  All  of  these  shipments  of  wine  varieties  and  a 
large  majority  of  those  of  raisin  varieties  were  shipped  as  juice  stock 
to  meet  the  heavy  seasonal  demand  for  wine  making  which  usually 
takes  place  in  the  latter  part  of  September  and  in  October. 


Estimated   Weekly  Shipments   of  Caiifornia   Orapes  by  C/osses, 
1925  and   1926 


Aug  Sepi-.  Oci:  /Vov 


Fig.  20. — Heavy  shipments  of  wine  and  raisin  varieties  largely  account  for 
California's  tremendous  increase  in  recent  years  of  shipments  of  grapes  from 
the  middle  of  September  to  the  latter  part  of  October.  Table  varieties  are  shipped 
in  the  largest  volume  during  the  latter  part  of  October  and  in  early  November. 
(Data  from  table  13,  p.  72.) 


Table  varieties  of  grapes  are  shipped  from  California  in  the  largest 
volume  during  the  latter  part  of  October  and  in  early  November. 
Comparison  of  the  curve  of  shipments  of  table  varieties  in  figure  20 
with  that  of  shipments  of  table  stock  in  figure  19  makes  it  evident, 
however,  that  in  the  latter  part  of  October  particularly,  a  considerable 
portion  of  table  varieties,  chiefly  the  Malaga,  are  shipped  as  juice 
stock  and  not  for  table  purposes. 


BUL.  429]  ECONOMIC  STATUS  OF  THE  GRAPE  INDUSTRY  73 


GRAPE    BY-PRODUCTS 

Unpromising  Outlook  for  Grape  By-Products. — During  the  war, 
when  prohibition  first  threatened  the  wine-manufacturing  industry  of 
California,  it  was  believed  by  many  that  there  were  a  number  of 
promising  outlets  for  the  profitable  utilization  and  disposal  of  the 
wine-grape  crop  of  the  state.  Among  the  many  suggested  products 
were  jelly,  jam,  marmalade,  pickles,  catsup,  vinegar,  candy  extracts, 
pressed  grape  bricks,  non-beverage  wines  for  sacramental  and  medi- 
cinal purposes,  "de-alcoholized"  wine,  grape  juice,  grape  syrup  (con- 
centrated grape  juice),  and  dried  wine  grapes.  The  last  three  uses — 
as  juice,  syrup,  and  dried — were  viewed  most  optimistically  as  offering 
extensive  and  profitable  outlets.25 

Unfortunately  for  the  wine-grape  growers  of  California,  these 
prospects  of  a  large  and  expanding  market  for  grape  products  have 
never  materialized.  Effective  technical  methods  of  processing,  pre- 
serving, and  storing  most  of  the  better  grape  products  have  been 
devised.26  Up  to  the  present  time,  however,  the  little  effort  that  has 
been  devoted  to  creating  a  demand  for  such  products  has  not  resulted 
in  a  market  demand  for  any  of  them  sufficiently  profitably  to  dispose 
of  an  appreciable  quantity  of  California  grapes.  The  problem  of 
salvaging  wine  and  other  juice  varieties,  however,  has  become  more 
acute  in  the  last  few  years.  The  output  has  increased  so  fast  that 
prices  have  fallen  rapidly27  and,  in  addition,  it  has  become  increas- 
ingly difficult  to  dispose  of  No.  2  black  wine  grapes  and  lower  grades 
at  any  reasonably  remunerative  figure.  The  same  situation  is  true 
of  even  the  best  grades  of  juice  grapes  other  than  the  much  preferred 
black  varieties. 

California's  Canned-Grape  Pack,  1910-1926. — Little  complete  and 
accurate  data  are  available  concerning  the  disposition  of  California 
grapes  for  any  purposes  except  for  raisins,  for  fresh  shipments,  and 
for  the  commercial  manufacture  of  wine  and  brandy.28     Accurate 


25  See  articles  in  the  California  Grape  Grower  in  1920 ;  for  example,  in  the 
April,  1920,  issue;  discussion  by  Nougaret,  R.  L.,  The  California  Grape  Industry, 
1919,  Calif.  Dept.  Agr.  Spec.  Pub.  6:  17-20.  1920,  and  Bulletin  15  on  Dried  Wine 
Grapes,  issued  by  the  California  State  Board  of  Viticultural  Commissioners,  June 
15,  1919. 

26  See  the  publications  of  the  Division  of  Viticulture  and  Fruit  Products  of 
the  University  of  California.  In  particular  see  J.  H.  Irish,  Fruit  Juice  Con- 
centrates, Calif.  Agr.  Exp.  Sta.  Bui.  392,  September,  1925. 

27  See  discussion  of  prices,  pp.  85-94. 

28  For  California  raisin  production  see  tables  20  and  27,  pp.  101  and  124. 
Shipments  of  fresh  raisin  grapes  are  shown  in  tables  8  and  9,  pp.  46  and  54. 
Wine  and  brandy  output,  1900-1918,  is  given  in  table  22,  p.  111. 


74 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


figures  showing  the  annual  volume  of  the  canned-grape  pack,  how- 
ever, are  available  for  a  quarter  of  a  century  or  more.  Table  14  shows 
the  approximate  tonnage  of  grapes  that  have  been  canned  in  the 
state  annually  from  1910  to  1926.  It  brings  out  the  striking  fact  that 
only  a  small  fraction  of  1  per  cent  of  the  grape  crop  of  the  state  has 
ever  been  canned.  The  largest  pack  in  the  last  fifteen  years  utilized 
only  2,600  tons  of  grapes.  Since  1910  the  tonnage  packed  has  ranged 
from  this  figure  down  to  somewhat  less  than  1,000  tons.  These  statis- 
tics show  no  evident  trend  towards  the  utilization  of  an  increased 
tonnage  of  grapes  for  canning. 

TABLE  14 
California's  Canned-Grape  Pack,  1910-1926 


Year 

Number 
of  cases 

Fresh 
tons 

Year 

Number 
of  cases 

Fresh 
tons 

Year 

Number 
of  cases 

Fresh 
tons 

1910 

52,005 
79,715 
53,410 
48,115 
56,160 
77,610 

1,040 
1,594 
1,068 
962 
1,123 
1,552 

1916     .  ... 

101,130 

85,491 
99,068 
104,446 
114,886 
91,886 

2,022 
1,710 
1,981 
2,089 
2,298 
1,838 

1922 . ... 

69,760 
54,210 
79,980 
130,269 
119,338 

1,395 

1911 

1917 

1918     .. 

1923 

1924 

1925 

1926 

1927 

1,084 

1912 

1,600 

1913 

1919 

1920 

2,605 

1914 

2,387 

1915.... 

1921 

Data  for  1910-1917  compiled  from  California  Fruit  News,  and  for  1918-1926  from  figures  of  the 
Canners'  League  of  California.  The  number  of  cases  given  disregards  the  size  of  tin  except  that  No.  10 
tins  for  all  years  are  included  on  the  basis  of  6  cans  per  case.  Cases  are  converted  to  an  approximate 
fresh  tonnage  basis  by  dividing  by  50. 


California's  Output  of  Grape  Juice  and  Syrup  and  Dried  Wine 
Grapes,  1919-1921. — Guesses  regarding  the  tonnage  of  California 
grapes  dried  and  converted  into  unfermented  juice  and  syrup  since 
the  war  are  available  for  the  three  years  1919-1921  only.  Although 
the  estimates  presented  herewith  in  table  15  are  of  questionable  value, 
they  give  some  idea  of  the  probable  maximum  annual  amount  of  Cali- 
fornia's grape  crop  that  has  been  utilized  in  the  manufacture  of  these 
three  by-products  since  prohibition.  Some  of  the  unfermented  grape 
juice  and  grape  syrup  accounted  for  in  this  table  was  probably  made 
from  low-grade  table  grapes,  but  most  of  it  was  manufactured  from 
wine  grapes,  and  hence  these  figures  may  be  used  as  the  basis  of  a  fair 
and  interesting  comparison  with  California's  total  wine-grape  pro- 
duction for  these  years. 

Apparently,  the  maximum  percentage,  as  well  as  the  greatest 
absolute  tonnage  of  any  wine-grape  crop,  was  absorbed  for  these  three 
uses  in  1919.  About  75,000  tons,  or  nearly  20  per  cent  of  the  crop, 
was  dried  or  converted  to  juice  and  syrup  in  that  year.  Less  than 
10  per  cent  of  the  wine-grape  crop  was  dried.     In  1920  about  5  per 


Bul.  429] 


ECONOMIC   STATUS   OF   THE   GRAPE   INDUSTRY 


75 


cent  of  the  crop  went  into  the  three  by-products  and  only  about  2 
per  cent  was  dried.  By  1921  the  total  tonnage  accounted  for  in  table 
15  had  declined  to  about  10,000  tons,  or  less  than  4  per  cent  of  the 
total  wine-grape  production  of  the  state,  and  only  1  per  cent  of  the 
crop  was  dried.  The  decline  in  utilization  along  these  lines  reflects 
the  growing  demand  of  the  eastern  markets  for  fresh  wine  grapes  and 
the  lack  of  a  remunerative  demand  for  the  dried  product  and  un- 
fermented  juice  and  syrup.  In  1922  Nougaret,  in  touching  upon  this 
problem,  states  that  "grape  juice  and  grape  syrup  have  decreased  in 
production,  and  the  drying  of  wine  grapes,  so  strongly  encouraged 
in  1919,  is  no  longer  thought  of."29 

TABLE  15 

Estimates  of  California's  Output  of  Dried  Wine  Grapes  and  of  all 
Grape  Juice  and  Syrup,  1919-1921 


Total 

Grape  juice 

Grape  syrup 

Dried  wine  grapes 

Year 

Tons 

Gallons 

Tons 

Gallons 

Tons 

Dry 
tons 

Green 
tons 

Per  cent 

of  wine 

grape  crop 

1919 

1920 

76,800 
21,000 
10,744 

5,000,000 
1,500,000 
1,000,000 

33,300 
10,000 
6,700 

200,000 
100,000 

6,000 
3,000 

10,000 
2,000 
1,011* 

37,500 
8,000 
4,044 

9 
2 

1921 

1 

*  Included  in  raisin  crop. 

Data  from  Nougaret,  R.  L.     Status  of  California  Grape  Industry,  June  30,  1922.     Calif.  Dept.  Agr. 
Spec.  Pub.  28:15.     1922. 


Market  Outlook  for  Vinifera  Juice  and  Syrup. — Grape  syrup  and 
grape  juice  have  probably  been  suggested  most  frequently  as  the  best 
outlet  for  California's  low-grade  and  surplus  grapes.  This  is  in  part 
due  to  the  fact  that  the  unfermented  juice  of  eastern  grapes,  chiefly 
the  Concord,  has  found  much  favor  with  the  American  public,  in  spite 
of  its  relatively  high  price  compared  with  most  soft  drinks.  The 
present  volume  of  sales  of  eastern  grape  juice  has,  however,  been 
built  up  over  a  period  of  about  twenty  years  at  considerable  cost  for 
advertising  and  for  establishing  effective  distribution.  Although  a 
large  amount  of  eastern  grapes  are  converted  to  juice  in  New  York 
and  Michigan  particularly,  only  a  fraction  of  the  eastern  grape  crop 
is  utilized  for  this  purpose. 

Available  data  from  the  chief  juice-pressing  section,  the  Chautau- 
qua-Erie grape  belt  of  New  York,  indicate  that  the  trend  of  the  output 


29  Nougaret,  R.  L.     Status  of  Califorinia  grape  industry,  June  30,  1922.     Calif. 
Dept.  Agr.  Spec.  Pub.  28:  18-19.     1922. 


76  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

of  unfermented  grape  juice  in  the  east  has  been  declining  during  the 
last  ten  years.30 

These  facts  would  seem  to  indicate  that  it  is  questionable  whether 
there  is  much  likelihood  of  greatly  reducing  the  competition  between 
California  and  eastern  fresh  grapes  by  any  large  expansion  in  the 
output  of  grape  juice  pressed  from  eastern  grapes  in  the  next  few 
years.  However,  the  outlook  in  this  regard  may  be  very  uncertain, 
for,  if  eastern-grape  prices  remain  for  several  years  near  the  very  low 
level  of  $28  per  ton  in  1926,  production  and  consumption  of  eastern- 
grape  juice  may  be  appreciably  stimulated.  Special  study  of  the 
outlook  for  the  eastern  grape-juice  industry  is  necessary  to  visualize 
its  future  with  any  assurance  of  success. 

A  further  important  consideration  in  regard  to  the  probable 
limitations  of  the  market  expansion  for  California  grape  juice  and 
syrup  lies  in  the  fact  that  the  sale  of  unfermented  California  grape 
juice,  or  carbonated  beverages  made  therefrom,  seems  to  be  seriously 
handicapped  by  the  cultivated  American  taste  for  the  eastern  juice 
with  its  characteristic  flavor  and  its  high  acid  and  low  sugar  content. 
Considering  the  relatively  small  consumption  of  eastern  grape  juice 
after  it  has  been  well  advertised  and  distributed  for  many  years,  it 
seems  questionable  whether  the  demand  for  unfermented  vinifera 
grape  juice  as  a  beverage  can  be  economically  stimulated  in  the  United 
States  sufficiently  in  the  next  few  years  to  profitably  dispose  of  any 
appreciable  portion  of  California's  tremendous  grape  production.300 

In  spite  of  its  appeal  to  the  American  palate,  the  expansion  of  the 
consumption  of  even  eastern  grape  juice  has  been  seriously  retarded 
by  competition  with  the  innumerable  cheap  soft  drinks  which  have 
flooded  the  country  in  recent  years.  The  general  public  seems  to  be 
less  concerned  with  the  question  of  whether  a  soft  drink  is  made  from 


so  This  statement  is  based  on  statistics  showing  the  approximate  tonnage  of 
grapes  used  in  the  production  of  unfermented  grape  juice  in  the  Chautauqua-Erie 
grape  belt  of  New  York  from  1911  to  1926.  The  original  estimates  were  made 
by  the  Grape  Belt  and  have  been  compiled  from  that  source  for  the  years  1916- 
1926,  and  from  Welch,  J.  F.,  The  grape  juice  industry,  (in  The  Fruit  Industry 
in  New  York  State,  N.  Y.  State  Dept.  Markets  Bui.  147:  301,  302.  November, 
1922)  for  the  years  1911-1915.  In  this  article  Mr.  Welch  says  that  "it  is  esti- 
mated that  close  to  70  per  cent  of  the  [eastern  grape  juice]  output  comes  from 
New  York  factories."  That  most  of  the  New  York  plants  are  in  the  Chautauqua- 
Erie  belt  is  indicated  by  statements  of  Mr.  Welch  in  a  letter  written  May  21, 
1926,  to  the  effect  that,  outside  of  this  district,  there  are  three  factories  in  Michi- 
gan and  a  few  other  small  plants  mostly  scattered  throughout  central  New  York 
and  the  Hudson  Biver  section  of  the  state.  It  is  understood,  however,  that  there 
is  at  least  one  large  juice  plant  in  the  Ozark  Mountain  grape-producing  section. 

soa  Stoll,  H.  F.  How  can  we  salvage  our  California  wine  grapes?  Calif.  Grape 
Grower,  56:  1.     June,  1924. 


BUL.  429]  ECONOMIC  STATUS  OF  THE  GRAPE  INDUSTRY  77 

real  juices  than  with  the  question  of  a  cool  drink  at  a  low  price  per 
glass.  To  manufacture  and  distribute  carbonated  beverages  from 
pure  fruit  juices  at  as  low  a  price  as  those  made  with  the  usual 
imitation  fruit  flavors  has  not  as  yet  proved  feasible  on  any  large 
scale.  Carbonated  beverages  made  from  real  eastern  grape  juice  do 
not  sell  at  such  a  low  figure,  and  hence  the  demand  for  them  is  limited 
to  those  whose  taste  and  means  lead  them  to  pay  the  necessarily  higher 
price. 

It  is  understood  that  recently  there  has  been  some  increase  in  the 
sale  of  the  concentrated  juices  of  California  grapes  and  raisins.  If, 
however,  this  increase  is  based  largely  on  a  demand  for  wine  making 
in  the  home,  as  has  been  reported,  it  is  little,  if  any,  indication  of  any 
rosier  outlook  for  the  disposal  of  these  grape  products  for  use  in 
unfermented  beverages. 

In  summarizing  the  question,  "How  Can  We  Salvage  Our 
Grapes?",  Mr.  Stoll  states  that  in  all  the  years  since  prohibition  "it 
must  be  admitted  that  none  of  the  grape  products  manufactured  have 
helped  materially  to  solve  our  salvage  problem So  far,  no  by- 
product has  been  invented  or  manufactured  that  has  gained  sufficiently 
in  popularity  to  figure  materially  in  the  solution  of  our  salvage  prob- 
lem, and  no  state-wide  plan  has  been  designed  to  use  these  grapes  to 
profitable  advantage The  problem  is  greater  today  because  pro- 
duction is  larger  and  modern  standardization,  inspection,  and  regula- 
tion have  created  a  demand  for  only  sound  No.  1  grapes.  Nobody 
in  the  shipping  games  wants  to  risk  shipping  inferior  grapes."31 
"What  we  need  is  a  new  grape  product  that  will  be  legitimate  and 
salable,  one  that  will  appeal  to  110,000,000  people  of  the  United 
States.  Until  that  magic  product  is  found,  we  fear  that  there  will 
be  no  solution  of  the  wine-grape  growers'  dilemma  as  to  what  they 
shall  do  with  their  ....  surplus  grapes  each  fall.  "32 


3i  In  the  California  Grape  Grower,  8i :  6.     January,  1927. 

32  Stoll,  H.  F.     How  can  we  salvage  our  California  wine  grapes?,  in  the  Cali- 
fornia Grape  Grower,  56:  1.     June,  1924. 


78  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


PRINCIPAL   MARKETS    FOR    CALIFORNIA    GRAPESss 

Grape  Unloads  in  Chief  Cities,  1924-1926.— The  data  in  table  23 
on  unloads  of  grapes  during  1924,  1925,  and  1926  in  thirty-six  of  the 
largest  cities  in  the  United  States,  show  the  geographical  distribution 
of  nearly  70  per  cent  of  the  country's  grape  shipments  in  these  years.34 
They  reflect  the  relative  importance  of  the  principal  grape-marketing 
centers  of  the  United  States.  Because  of  California's  abnormally 
heavy  grape  shipments  in  1925,  95  per  cent  of  the  grape  unloads  in 
these  cities  in  that  year  originated  in  the  state.  In  1924  and  1926, 
however,  years  more  nearly  typical  of  California's  grape  movement, 
about  85  per  cent  of  the  carlot  unloads  in  these  36  cities  came  from 
the  state.  In  the  fifteen  cities  lying  north  of  the  Mason  and  Dixon 
line  and  east  of  the  Mississippi  River  for  which  data  are  given, 
approximately  60  per  cent  of  both  the  national  and  California's  ship- 
ments of  grapes  were  unloaded.  Six  cities  alone  in  this  territory, 
New  York,  Chicago,  Boston,  Philadelphia,  Pittsburgh,  and  Newark, 
absorbed  approximately  50  per  cent  of  the  country's  total  carlot  move- 
ment of  grapes  in  the  last  three  years,  and  over  51  per  cent  of  Cali- 
fornia's shipments. 

Comparison  of  Unloads  from  California  and  from  Other  States. — 
A  study  of  the  percentage  of  the  total  unloads  of  grapes  in  different 
cities  which  were  supplied  by  California  in  the  last  three  years,  as 
shown  in  table  23,  gives  an  idea  of  the  relative  amount  of  competition 
which  the  grapes  from  this  state  meet  in  each  of  these  markets.  Cali- 
fornia's grape  shipments  and  unloads  were  unusually  large  in  1925 
and  those  from  the  eastern  states  below  average,  hence  data  for  this 
year  should  not  be  used  as  a  basis  of  such  a  comparison.     The  years 


33  Data,  maps,  and  charts  showing  grape  unloads  in  27  cities  in  1923  and  the 
primary  and  secondary  destination  of  California  shipments  are  given  in  Cricher, 
A.  Lane.  Transportation  of  Pacific  Coast  perishables.  U.  S.  Bur.  Foreign  and 
Domestic  Commerce  Trade  Promotion  Series  Bui.  12.  1924.  The  primary  des- 
tination of  carlot  shipments  of  eastern  grapes  from  each  important  producing 
section  in  1918  is  tabulated  in  Alleman,  D.  Marketing  eastern  grapes.  U.  S. 
Dept.  Agr.  Bui.  861:  55-61.  September,  1920.  The  mimeographed  California 
Grape  Deals  for  1923  and  1924,  issued  by  the  U.  S.  Bureau  of  Agricultural  Eco- 
nomics, give  grape  unloads  for  1923  in  27  of  the  chief  cities.  Monthly  carlot 
arrivals  of  grapes  in  New  York  City  by  states  of  origin  in  1923  and  the  monthly 
totals  from  all  states  for  the  years  1920-1922  are  given  in  the  mimeographed 
California  Grape  Deal  for  1923,  p.  22.  The  1923  Deal  also  gives  the  primary 
destination  of  California  grape  shipments,  Aug.  3  to  Nov.  10,  1923,  being  the 
source  of  the  data  referred  to  above  which  Cricher  presents. 

34  National  shipments  of  grapes  in  1924  were  almost  70,000  carloads,  in  1925 
nearly  81,900,  and  in  1926  about  77,500.  California's  shipments  in  1924  were 
nearly  57,800  carloads,  in  1925  nearly  76,100,  and  in  1926  slightly  over  63,500 
carloads. 


BUL.  429]  ECONOMIC  STATUS  OF  THE  GRAPE   INDUSTRY  79 

1924  and  1926,  however,  may  be  considered  fairly  typical  of  the 
maximum  relative  competition  California  unloads  are  likely  to  meet 
from  other  states. 

In  general  it  may  be  said  that  unloads  of  eastern  grapes  are  most 
important  as  competitors  of  California  grapes  in  those  cities  and  areas 
which  are  close  to  the  chief  eastern  grape  producing  centers.  In  other 
words,  since  the  chief  eastern  grape  producing  and  consuming  areas 
are  relatively  close  together,  the  output  from  these  states  is  unloaded 
in  the  heaviest  volume  on  many  of  the  very  markets  that  are  the 
heaviest  consumers  of  California  grapes.  The  general  truth  of  this 
statement  is  proven  by  the  fact  that  in  1926  over  88  per  cent  of  Cali- 
fornia's grape  unloads  and  92  per  cent  of  those  from  the  rest  of  the 
United  States  were  unloaded  in  the  same  group  of  cities,  i.e.,  those 
in  New  England,  the  Middle  Atlantic,  the  East  North  Central,  and 
the  West  North  Central.35 

The  fact  that  only  about  55  per  cent  of  shipments  of  eastern 
grapes  were  unloaded  in  the  33  cities  for  which  unloads  are  available 
in  both  1924  and  1926,  seems  to  indicate  that  a  very  large  part  of  the 
grapes  originating  outside  of  California  are  consumed  in  cities  smaller 
than  those  listed. 


FOREIGN   TRADE    IN    FRESH    GRAPES36 

Imports. — Before  the  war  about  18,000  tons  of  fresh  grapes  were 
imported  into  the  United  States  each  year.  (See  table  16.)  More 
than  95  per  cent  of  this  amount  came  from  Spain,  the  United  States 
then  being  the  second  largest  importer  of  grapes  from  the  Province 
of  Almeria.37  Largely  because  of  the  Federal  Horticultural  Com- 
mission's rigid  quarantine  since  1922  against  importation  of  Spanish 
grapes  grown  in  Almeria,  imports  of  grapes  from  Spain  have  been 
reduced  to  almost  nothing  in  the  last  three  years.  Should  the  quaran- 
tine be  lifted  in  the  future,  imports  from  Spain  would  probably  be 
resumed  on  a  considerable  scale. 


35  In  drawing  conclusions  from  carlot  unloads  of  grapes  from  other  states  it 
must  not  be  forgotten  that  proximity  to  markets  has  resulted  in  a  considerable  but 
unknown  portion  of  eastern  grapes  moving  by  motor  truck  from  some  producing 
areas  into  several  important  consuming  centers. 

36  Data  are  compiled  from  the  annual  numbers  of  Foreign  Commerce  and 
Navigation  of  the  United  States,  U.  S.  Dept.  Commerce,  Bur.  Foreign  and  Domes- 
tic Commerce.  Fresh  grape  exports  from  the  United  States  are  not  available 
before  1922, 

For  statistics  of  international  trade  in  fresh  grapes,  average  1909-1913  and 
annual  1922-1924  by  chief  exporting  and  chief  importing  countries,  see  U.  S. 
Dept.  Agr.  Yearbook,  1925:  879.     1926. 

37  U.  S.  Bur.  Agr.  Econ.,  Foreign  Crops  and  Markets,  9:  599-601.   Dec.  3,  1924. 


80 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


Practically  all  imported  grapes,  except  those  from  Italy,  are  table 
varieties.  Total  imports  in  1925  were  only  1,400  tons.  Most  of  these 
arrived  during  the  winter  from  the  hot  houses  of  Belgium38  and  from 
Argentina,39  where  the  seasons  are  the  reverse  of  ours.  These  imports, 
therefore,  have  competed  but  slightly,  if  at  all,  with  California  grapes, 
only  a  few  of  which  are  held  in  storage  for  our  winter  markets.  For 
the  three  years  before  the  tariff  of  1922,  Canada  was  the  second  largest 

TABLE  16 

Imports  of  Fresh  Grapes  into  the  United  States  by  Chief  Countries  of 
Origin,  in  Tons,  Average  1910-1914;  Annual  1920-1925 


Country  from  which 

Average 
July  1,  1909 

to 
June30,1914 

Calendar  years 

imported 

1920 

1921 

1922 

1923 

1924 

1925 

1926 

1927 

Spain 

18,590 

255 

40 

2 

1    • 

9,848 

340 

2,686 

6,546 

406 

2,717 

5 

34 

5 

61 

12,676 
425 
3,715 
270 
131 
280 
111 

8,949 
420 
196 
385 
484 
190 
168 

19 
446 

93 
592 
198 

43 

11 

0 
382 
100 
825 
80 
166 

Belgium 

Canada 

Argentina 

Italy 

3 

Chile 

148 

13 

Total 

19,036 
100 

12,890 
67.7 

9,774 
51.3 

17,608 
92.5 

10,792 
56.7 

1,402 

7.4 

1,554 

8.2 

4,068 
21.4 

Per  cent  of  1910-1914 

Sources  of  data:  Years  1910-1914  and  1920-1925  compiled  from  annual  numbers  of  U.  S.  Depart- 
ment of  Commerce,  Foreign  Commerce  and  Navigation  of  the  United  States.  Preliminary  data  for  1926 
from  U.  S.  Monthly  Summary  of  Foreign  Commerce  for  Dec,  1926.  Imports  as  officially  stated  in  cubic 
feet  are  converted  to  approximate  tons  on  the  basis  of  26  pounds  of  grapes  per  cubic  foot. 

importer  of  grapes  into  the  United  States,  averaging  nearly  3,000  tons 
a  year.  For  the  past  two  years,  however,  we  have  received  less  than 
100  tons  a  year  from  Canada.  The  possibility  of  greatly  increased 
imports  of  wine  grapes  grom  Italy  has  been  widely  discussed  in  recent 
years.  The  most  usual  conclusion,  however,  is  that  such  a  possibility 
is  very  remote.40 

Exports. — The  tonnage  of  fresh  grapes  exported  from  the  United 
States  is  exceedingly  small  compared  with  total  production.  The 
12,000  tons  exported  in  1925  were  only  about  0.5  per  cent  of  the 
two-million-ton  crop.  That  the  tonnage  exported,  however,  has  been 
increasing  in  recent  years  is  shown  in  figure  21.  The  1925  exports 
nearly  doubled  those  of  1922,  and  the  1926  tonnage  of  over  15,300 


ss  Anonymous.     California  Grape  Grower,  3i :  5.     January,  1922. 

so  See  U.  S.  Bur.  Agr.  Econ.,  Foreign  Crops  and  Markets,  11:  769.  June  22, 
1925,  and  Nougaret,  K.  L.  Status  of  California  grape  industry,  1922.  Calif. 
Dept.  Agr.  Spec.  Pub.  28:  40-42,  45.     1922. 

40  See  The  California  Grape  Grower,  5i :  8.  January,  1924;  62:  6.  February, 
1925;  6io:  1-2.     October,  1925;  and  later  issues. 


BUL.  429]  ECONOMIC  STATUS  OF   THE  GRAPE   INDUSTRY  81 

was  even  larger  than  that  of  1925.  Canada  is  our  principal  foreign 
market,  having  taken  65  per  cent  of  our  total  exports  of  grapes  in 
the  past  four  years.  Cuba,  our  next  largest  foreign  customer,  took 
18  per  cent  during  this  period;  while  Mexico  was  third  with  9  per 
cent.  The  remaining  8  per  cent  was  bought  in  small  quantities  by 
over  thirty  other  countries. 


Calendar 
Year 

1922 

1923 
1924 
1925 
J92(o 

United  States  Fresh-  Grope  Exports,  1922  ~  J9Z6 

„,.        .                                                             Thoosonds   crF  Tons 

*r?a                           s                           10                           is                          z 

o 

6913  fc^'-^i^fet  'j$~M:**m\ 

/0288M  •  lHH  IHH!!  i£^M\>  t  I 1  § 

iz  /ssm^-j.^fj'-  '■  >  f^iSfiflGIEiKiiS H  9  W 

i5SZ5W/Sl^^^^lmlS^S^S^i   '::  *$£i  IS 

Fig.  21. — Exports  of  fresh  grapes,  although  gradually  increasing,  account  for 
less  than  1  per  cent  of  United  States  production.  (Data  compiled  from  annual 
numbers  of  U.  S.  Dept.  Commerce,  Foreign  Commerce  and  Navigation  of  the 
United  States.) 


WEEKLY   VARIATION    IN    PRICES 

Comparison  of  the  Same  Varieties  in  Different  Years. — The  ques- 
tion, "Do  weekly  prices  of  the  same  kind  of  grapes  tend  to  move  up 
and  down  in  about  the  same  way  in  different  years?"  is  one  vital  to 
growers  and  shippers,  from  the  standpoint  of  better  time  distribution 
of  the  grape  crop  during  the  marketing  season.  Figure  22  is  designed 
to  make  it  easier  to  compare  the  weekly  variations  in  grape  prices 
from  August  first  through  the  middle  of  November  during  the  past 
three  years.  At  first  glance,  these  curves  show  no  very  apparent 
similarity  in  the  seasonal  movement  of  the  same  varieties  of  grapes 
in  different  years,  although  a  careful  comparison  seems  to  indicate 
some  regularity  in  seasonal  variation.  It  seems  doubtful,  however, 
whether  the  degree  of  likeness  in  the  comparative  fluctuations  of 
prices  in  the  different  years  shown  is  sufficient  to  be  of  much,  if  any, 
value  as  a  basis  for  indicating  how  shippers  may  in  any  practicable 
way  increase  their  returns  by  putting  more  grapes  on  the  market 
during  periods  when  prices  are  most  likely  to  be  higher  than  average.41 


*i  A  more  intensive  study  of  seasonal  variations  in  grape  prices  and  the  factors 
determining  them  is  beyond  the  scope  of  the  present  bulletin.  The  possibility  of 
discovering  valuable  relationships  in  this  field,  however,  make  such  studies  highly 
advisable. 


82 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


«8 


N 

\ 

\ 

l"1 

I 

4 

) 

> 

i 

( 

/ 

) 

J 

+, 
^ 

V 

\ 

|§ 

< 

J 

> 

% 

S 

1 

C 

"> 

5. 

--- 

J 

R 

"> 

;/ 

^ 

J 

g» 

«** 

^ 

i& 

f 

1* 

< 

V 

a 

r 

& 

q 
^ 

< 

/ 

^r 

i  j 

3      § 

\      \ 

a      q 

iSS 


■  w$  5p 


> 

; 

<s 

\ 

> 

- 

X 

': 

g 

^^ 

/ 

- 

1 

^ 

\ 

8* 
1 

V 

"> 

^ 

- 

£ 

j 

\ 

%l 


^ 

!Q 

is 

i 

Is 

5 

J^- 

^.^ 

g" 

^ 



1 

0) 

V 

■  Sj 

1)1 

! 

^s 

$ 

-  ** 

4 

-  o> 

zzi-id  d£oj&A\f    suosveg-  jj?   +<->aj  ^cg 


BUL.  429]  ECONOMIC  STATUS  OF  THE  GRAPE   INDUSTRY  83 

Tokays. — A  study  of  figure  22  discloses  the  fact  that  the  similarity 
in  the  seasonal  movement  of  prices  in  different  years  is  much  more 
noticeable  with  some  kinds  of  grapes  than  with  others.  Tokay  prices, 
shown  in  the  second  column,  exhibit  more  similarity  of  movement  than 
any  other  variety  pictured.  Every  year  from  1917  to  date  Tokay 
prices  have  been  uniformly  high  in  August,  then  have  tended  to  fall 
rather  rapidly  until  a  low  point  has  been  reached  in  the  latter  part 
of  September  or  early  in  October.  This  usually  has  been  followed 
by  a  more  or  less  noticeable  rise  in  prices  for  a  week  or  two  in  the 
last  of  October  which,  in  turn,  has  frequently,  though  not  always,  been 
followed  by  the  rather  abrupt  declines  indicated  for  1924-1925,  prices, 
usually  reaching  the  lowest  point  of  the  season  about  the  middle  of 
November. 

Malagas. — There  has  been  no  striking  similarity  in  the  seasonal 
movement  of  Malaga  prices  in  the  last  three  years.  The  earliest 
Malagas,  reaching  the  markets  as  they  do  when  the  supply  of  grapes 
is  light,  usually  bring  a  high  price,  followed  by  the  tendency  to  decline 
until  late  in  August  or  early  in  September.  Frequently,  rising  prices 
then  occur  until  a  secondary  peak  somewhat  above  the  seasonal  aver- 
age is  reached  about  the  middle  of  October.  Frequently  there  has 
been  a  decline  during  the  latter  part  of  October  and  the  first  few 
weeks  in  November. 

Thompson  Seedless. — Early  in  the  season  Thompson  Seedless,  like 
Malagas,  have  regularly  commanded  high  prices,  showing  a  tendency 
to  decline  rather  rapidly  until  they  reached  what  has  usually  been 
the  lowest  point  of  the  season  in  the  latter  part  of  August  or,  at  times, 
well  into  September.  The  price  has  customarily  risen  from  then  until 
near  the  latter  part  of  October,  when  a  more  or  less  rapid  decline 
has  taken  place.  Exceptions  to  the  tendencies  just  described  are  quite 
evident  from  a  study  of  the  prices  pictured  in  figure  22. 

Wine  Grapes  and  Muscats. — The  prices  of  wine  grapes  as  a  group 
have  been  characterized  by  a  fairly  regular  tendency  to  rise  during 
the  month  of  October,  sometimes  falling  and  at  other  times  rising  in 
the  early  part  of  November.  Muscats,  the  large  majority  of  which  are 
used  for  wine  making,  have  showTn  a  somewhat  similar  tendency,  in 
most  years. 

Comparison  of  Different  Varieties  in  the  Sarne  Year. — Whether 
or  not  there  is,  in  a  given  season,  any  tendency  for  weekly  prices  of 
different  kinds  of  grapes  to  move  up  and  down  together  is  a  question 
more  easily  answered  than  the  one  just  considered.  Weekly  prices  of 
all  varieties  of  grapes  in  1925,  shown  in  figure  22,  have  a  striking  and 


84 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


much  greater  similarity  in  movement  than  in  either  1924  or  1926. 
With  the  exception  of  Muscats,  the  prices  of  every  variety  in  1925 
were  relatively  high  in  August  but  tending  to  decline.  In  the  latter 
part  of  September  or  the  first  three  weeks  in  October  there  was  a 
small  but  noticeable  tendency  to  advance  for  a  short  time,  followed 
by  a  precipitate  drop  during  the  last  five  or  six  weeks.  A  comparison 
of  the  seasonal  variation  in  prices  of  different  varieties  in  1924  and 
in  1926  discloses  two  general  tendencies  for  nearly  every  variety; 


TABLE  17 

Weekly  Eastern  Delivered- Auction  Prices  of  California  Grapes  per  Lug, 
by  Varieties,  1924-1926 


Malaga 

Tokay 

Thompson 
Seedless 

Muscat 

Wine 
varieties 

Week  ending 

Dollars 

Percent 

of 
average 

Dollars 

Per  cent 

of 
average 

Dollars 

Percent 

of 
average 

Dollars 

Per  cent 

of 
average 

Dollars 

Percent 

of 
average 

1926 

Average 

1  11 

1.10 
1.07 
.97 
1.26 
1.67 
1.76 
1.21 
.93 
.96 
1.19 
1.39 
1.24 
1.06 
1.01 
1.11 

100  0 

99.1 
96.4 
87.4 
113.5 
150.5 
158.6 
109.1 
83.8 
86.5 
107.2 
125.2 
111.7 
95.5 
91.0 
100.0 

1  38 

100  0 

1  09 

.97 

.89 

.92 

1.14 

1.72 

1.36 

.99 

.88 

.85 

•    1.06 

1.62 

1.59 

1.36 

1.36 

1.11 

100  0 

89.0 
81.7 
84.4 
104.6 
157.8 
124.8 
90.8 
80.7 
78.0 
97.2 
148.6 
145.9 
124.8 
124.8 
101.8 

1  03 

1.35 

1.04 

.81 

1.13 

1.28 

1.15 

.88 

.81 

.83 

.97 

1.05 

1.14 

1.19 

1.18 

1.53 

100  0 

131.0 
101.0 
78.5 
109.6 
124.3 
111.5 
85.3 
78.5 
80.5 
94.1 
101.9 
110.8 
115.6 
114.7 
148.5 

1.40 

1.45 
1.24 
1.17 
1.21 
1.35 
1.27 
1.17 
1.16 
1.27 
1.45 
1.50 
1.45 
1.55 
1.58 
1.91 

100  0 

103.5 

14 

88.8 

21 

2.21 
1.87 
1.82 
1.67 
1.37 
1.81 
1.13 
1.34 
1.88 
1.71 
1.20 
1.05 
1.00 

160.0 
135.5 
132.0 
121.0 

99.3 
131.1 
82.0 
97.3 
136.1 
124.1 
87.0 
76.2 
72.5 

83.5 

28 

86.5 

Sept.    4 

96.5 

11 

90.9 

18 

83.6 

25 

82.9 

Oct.      2 

90.9 

9 

103.5 

16 

107.0 

23 

103.5 

30 

110.8 

Nov.     6 

113.0 

13 

136.3 

1925 

Average 

Aug      8 

1  03 

1.68 
1.68 
1.95 
1.43 
1.47 
1.43 
1.37 
1.31 
1.34 
1.32 
1.46 
1  34 
1.08 
.68 
.65 

100  0 

163.1 
163.1 
189.3 
138.8 
142.7 
138.8 
133.0 
127.2 
130.1 
128.2 
141.7 
130.1 
104.9 
66.0 
63.1 

1.13 

100  0 

1  04 

1.44 
1.16 
1.13 
1.18 
1.27 
1.18 
1.13 
1.18 
1.24 
1.24 
1.21 
1.02 
.79 
.67 
.58 

100  0 

138.5 
111.5 
108.7 
113.5 
122.1 
113.5 
108.7 
113.5 
119.2 
119.2 
116.3 
98.1 
76.0 
64.4 
55.8 

.97 

100  0 

1  51 

100  0 

15 

1.00 

1.16 

1.21 

1.28 

1.31 

1.16 

1.17 

1.22 

1.24 

1.32 

1.18 

.97 

.73 

.69 

103.1 
119.6 
124.7 
132.0 
135.1 
119.6 
120.6 
125.8 
127.8 
136.1 
121.6 
100.0 
75.3 
71.1 

2.10 
1.92 
1.80 
1.80 
1.79 
1.75 
1.85 
1.80 
1.71 
1.58 
1.43 
1.39 
1.12 
1.43 

139.1 

22 

127.2 

29 

3.52 
2.29 
1.82 
1.52 
1.29 
1.28 
1.24 
1.35 
1.24 
1.17 
.81 
.71 

311.5 
202.7 
161.1 
134.5 
114.2 
113.3 
109.7 
119.5 
109.7 
103.5 
71.7 
62.8 

119.2 

Sept.    5 

119.2 

12  .... 

118.5 

19 

115.9 

26 

122.5 

Oct.      3 

119.2 

10 

113.2 

17 

104.6 

24 

94.7 

31 

92.1 

Nov.     7 

74.2 

14 

94.7 

BuL.  429]  ECONOMIC  STATUS  OF  THE  GRAPE  INDUSTRY 

TABLE  17—  (Concluded) 


85 


Malaga 

Tokay 

Thompson 
Seedless 

Muscat 

Wine 
varieties 

Week  ending 

Dollars 

Per  cent 

of 
average 

Dollars 

Percent 

of 
average 

Dollars 

Per  cent 

of 
average 

Dollars 

Per  cent 

of 
average 

Dollars 

Per  cent 

of 
average 

1924 

Average 

1  31 

1.63 
1.24 
1.59 
1.39 
1.39 
.96 
.98 
1.13 
1.27 
1.35 
1.35 
1.37 
1.32 
1.31 
1.31 
1.45 

100  0 

124.4 

94.7 

121.4 

106.1 

106.1 

73.3 

74.8 

86.3 

96.9 

103.1 

103.1 

104.6 

100.8 

100.0 

100.0 

110.7 

1  40 

100  0 

1.06 

1.54 
1.12 
1.08 
1.10 
1.04 
.79 
.79 
1.04 
1.15 
1.12 
1.12 
1.16 
1.26 
1.39 
1.05 
.98 

100  0 

145.3 

105.7 

101.9 

103.8 

98.1 

74.5 

74.5 

98.1 

108.5 

105.7 

105.7 

109.4 

118.9 

131.1 

99.1 

.  92.5 

1.12 

100  0 

1  90 

100  0 

8 

15 

22 

3.49 
2.20 
1.82 
1.71 
1.64 
1.73 
1.47 
1.41 
1.58 
1.77 
1.47 
1.14 
1.04 

249.3 
157.1 
130.0 
122.1 
117.1 
123.6 
105.0 
100.7 
112.9 
126.4 
105.0 
81.4 
74.3 

.74 

.94 

.84 

.77 

.95 

1.04 

1.07 

1.11 

1.22 

1.34 

1.25 

1.21 

1.32 

66.1 

83.9 

75.0 

68.7 

84.8 

92.9 

95.5 

99.2 

108.9 

119.6 

111.6 

108.0 

117.9 

2.23 
2.06 
1.72 
1.55 
1.65 
1.61 
1.81 
2.05 
2.16 
1.98 
1.96 
2.02 
2.48 

117.4 

29 

108.4 

Sept.    5 

90.5 

12 

81.6 

19 

86.8 

25 ... 

84.7 

Oct.      3 

95.3 

10 

107.9 

17 

113.7 

24 

104.2 

31 

103.2 

Nov.     7 

106.3 

14 

130.5 

See  footnote  to  tables  18  and  25,  pp.  86  and  120.  for  sources  of  data.  The  weekly  and  seasonal  prices 
are  weighted  average  prices  on  the  eleven  chief  eastern  delivered-auction  markets,  except  in  the  case  of 
wine  grapes.  The  weekly  price  of  wine  grapes  is  a  simple  or  unweighted  average  of  the  weighted  average 
auction  prices  of  Alicante  Bouschet,  Carignane,  Mission,  Petite  Sirah,  Zinfandel,  and  Mataro  varieties. 
The  seasonal  average  for  wine  grapes  is  a  simple  average  of  the  weighted  average  for  the  season  of  these 
same  varieties.  The  prices  are  converted  to  relatives  by  dividing  the  seasonal  average  into  the  weekly 
prices. 

first,  to  be  high  in  price  early  in  the  season,  and  second,  to  rise  in  the 
latter  part  of  September  or  more  usually  in  October.  Wine  grapes 
and  Muscats  showed  less  of  a  tendency  to  bring  high  prices  in  the 
first  weeks  they  came  upon  the  market  than  did  table  grapes. 


ANNUAL   PRICES   AND    PURCHASING    POWER 

Table  Grapes,  1910-1926. — Annual  averages  of  the  prices  of 
Malaga  and  Tokay  varieties  from  1910  to  1926,  representing  the 
approximate  f.o.b.  return  at  California  shipping  points  to  table-grape 
growers  of  the  state,  are  used  in  figure  23. 42    The  solid  line,  indicating 


42  The  footnote  to  table  18,  page  86,  describes  in  detail  the  source  of  these 
prices  and  methods  used  in  computing  them.  The  f.o.b.  price  has  been  estimated 
by  subtracting  freight  and  refrigeration  and  a  7  per  cent  sales  commission  from 
the  Eastern  delivered-auction  price.  Representative  figures  showing  the  cost  of 
packages,  packing,  and  loading  table  grapes  for  each  year  could  not  be  secured, 
and  for  this  reason  it  has  been  impossible  to  compute  the  approximate  farm  price 
received  by  California  growers.  Any  reader  who  might  supply  such  data  on  costs 
for  any  or  all  years  from  1910  through  1926,  would  render  valuable  assistance  in 
further  studies  of  the  California  grape  industry. 


86 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


dj  ft  -  p,S 


§a 


^o°5      h 

V  OS    > 

Ph       ^o« 


ooiooooNooaHnioioioioen 


■OHMOOOONOOntf) 


■*  m  oo  o  'O 


I  I 


a 


ioco-^>oeo^f<Tt<co-<ti-*i»o< 


I        e> 


°^  I-  I 

2  S  |       ! 


NNONOoomc-ic^i-  co  r^  ■*  t*i  rt  r-n 

r-i  ^H  ^H  ,-H   ^H   rt    C^l   <M   <M   CX|   -H    ,-H    ^H    -H   ^H 


o 


5^  o  £     2 


bC 

g 

HI  « 

o 

,G   * 

a 

SK 

bl) 

3 

a 

Ph 

n 

a 

,G 

03 

XJ 

o 

13 

0! 

oj 

s 

Ph 

w 

C50OOO00OOOOO00000 
OOOOOiOU3-*MOOiOnOOiON^ 

mco'*om'*©ioooOMONatD<tu5 
ifinrtOOOO'^NTjiaimmtDO'Haio 

0©000000>-H— l-Hr-H-HOOOO 

NcOO^OOtDiOCOOOlOOO'OOOOrHNO) 
(N05rH(NOlH«>(NOOO<DNN®tDncO 


aciw^moO' 


ooooooooooooooooo 


icooaimrticoo! 


.  a  co  Co  n  ■* 


iiotNtoflfflteoN 


OI^COtDiOr-lcoiTTtlOtDFHOsmOlOM 
00005'*N'HT)(OOOOiOrtNiO>OOC') 

,-H  rt  rHrtrHT-HNCNlNWrHrHrHrH 


fSM 


S.2  g 
o-g.2  ! 


II 


7  <s 
;©  b 


0>         Oi    > 

Ph       -<   o3 


CD*'   O   h 
Ph^.  03 


liii 


j;oci,   o>  i  _ 
3§ftftsS.2 


CONr-ICO0)C0'*crBr-ICM0sa>00rHC3)OO 

cOincOCSifNOCOcNeOCCiOOiHOOlcDOO 

©OOOOOOO-h^h^h-h-h^hOOO 

.^Tfoooi^mcricBinoocTOO-HcNaiNo 

•— iO^H-HH0:eCN]-**l"00a}»0er<|(3ir^Oc0iC 


I  CO  -H  -*  O  00  t 

OONCMCOWJCN'H^lOOSOOOiniOaiOO!) 
iO(CNl-rfl^*lCOTti-*lCO'*l'*'Ot^-^<COCOCOCC<I 


t-—  t^»  O  CO  Tt*  ^H   T+t  ^H  l~~  ^H 

*HwcMiocon*rto 

rttNCMMM'HrtHrHrt 


Cs  lO  CO  ■>*<  »o  ( 


OOOOOOOO' 


i^HrH-HOOOO© 


»H  rHO^H' 


ihhhcNMCNhhhhh 


I    bo- 


0^tCNCO'*iOCO^OOc350^c>clCO-^,'0<»f^ 
icNoqcNCvicqcMiMiM 

Oi  C3=  cj     - 


iCT>aio50)ooioioiaio>aioioioi 


I  Hi 

CI   =3-2  3 
o>^o3  ftW 

33  3  J™ 

&      B>     »H      B 

a;  q)  i>  o 


£  ft  « 

£gl 


o3  2  £  S  . 

en  7  t->7  L 

g  o)'^  S  3 

«  b>  io  o  h 

O  0>    5     C33  V 


CI 


3lll  g   3 


o3    *r 


3-rJ    >>"d 

:G;3£S 


-i 


.2-62^ 


-  C3*1*  o> 

g^  -Q 

£Oc?a; 
ai  en  i  ft 
en  oN  o3 


r*.2  ©S3      <*> 


— r     -G  •  -  o> 
f-S-0  ft^3 

<22^2g^ 

K    i     en  bD  -H  -*i 
O)  (CM 


£  3 

0) 


O    ^ 

■Si 


^S-B 

o3T3  o3 
.Boi 


_j  og  r-c  o> 

|>^2WB| 

•^     H.  03     u     .       tn 

.  rt.o8ai  6  bl 

I  oQ  g^;^ 

^fM»Ofl3 
.-£  J<  B  cni  B  g 

3  «  S2'3  s 

fe   OJ  «4,^hB 

53  ^ 

°h3-S     g-gBft^^S 
-ftSSg^-aS^'S'S 

0>  ' 


ft  »h  g 
s£b 

•r  o>0 

:ti 

^  °"  a 

lis 

h  ^  b 

-3  G 


aj-r; 


en  °* 

-B  «'*"' 
+3  o)  tu 

co  G 


a 


OG  i 

ft-B^43 

i^i :- 1 

en  O  •■£  t»r! 
oj        ft+i  o3 

3lS|§ 

ftjg  «P5  © 

03  «  B  hO  G 
2hB  o3  o3  O 
o> +3   ^  +^   03 

>'e»  o>  Si  2 

>>     >>b  2 

>-l     O  -Tl  •  «  «<-l 

o3^h  w  Geo 


-bJSoT^-00 

25        ^  o3  £}  o  e» 
^TJ  o3  O  0>^+j 

1    i»;a 


Jo 


»  >>- 


^  « 


T3  mOCS  CB^I  J) 
G  If  S2-B>h  rOJ 
03  g  g^^^ 

^Ol3  o  fe  B^ 

<U    fcl  ^h    03   _ 

io  G  -^  *«  +3  _  >< 

o^'S  3^-3.2 

""SjSftleBo. 

•^  B  o  o3  °g  E 
GO  oOg  MO- 

ftS     ^u  ftn?   • 

B^  03  0  B  g  00> 

•§££:B^gSB 

0»>,      .   ?0   »   O   H 

Q.    .3^2  2=3-1 
-     =3c7Q 

a" 


73<+-.2o3TJ£r!03G 
>,0  03   S    >£»•£ 

-d.2  ¥  >>-£^  9,< 
csh?Go  a-2    - 


°fer>>SOG03fto,        ftfiB    -^■g-       O 

-|^>G2;ga|2     S.J.2s5"o^ 

Shfi^T3SBo3Go3o30o3-TC»>iS-T!3G     .     • 


cu  G-r  flt! 

>H  03-S  03  o3( 


'Q* 


^  §T3  B     .     • 


Sft. 


"g  PrtG3  en'' 

a  b  tn 


rT^^2.o3oo 


,P 


>»»°Qo  gOOO  0300  a-^uu 


-G  01  hG 


Bul.  429] 


ECONOMIC   STATUS   OF   THE   GRAPE   INDUSTRY 


87 


the  price  per  ton,  shows  strikingly  the  rapid  rise  in  prices  from  about 
$35  a  ton  in  1914  to  about  $130  in  1920,  followed  by  an  even  more 
precipitous  drop  to  the  new  low  level  of  $50  a  ton  in  1925  and  1926. 
The  fluctuations  in  prices  shown  in  this  curve  represent  price  changes 
that  have  been  due  to  two  sets  of  causes:  one,  the  changing  value 
of  the  dollar;  the  other,  changes  in  the  relation  of  supply  of,  and 
demand  for,  grapes. 


Malaga  -  Tokay  Average  Price  and  Purchasing  Power j  1910  '  1926. 
(Estimated  -fo.b.  Shipping  Points  Based  on  Eastern  Delivered -Auction  Sales) 


Pr 

ice-^ 

y 

/ 

\ 

\ 

s 

\ 

A 

7urchc 

Po\*rer 

\ 

\ 

Fig.  23. — Prices  of  California  table  grapes  rose  steadily  and  rapidly  from 
1914  to  1920,  trebling  in  this  period.  After  1920  they  dropped  precipitously  until 
1925.  Eeturns  per  ton  in  terms  of  dollars  of  pre-war  purchasing  power  rose  and 
fell  less  rapidly  than  actual  prices,  reaching  a  peak  in  1921  and  declining  sharply 
since  then,  dropping  below  pre-war  purchasing  power  in  the  last  two  years.  (Data 
from  table  18,  p.  86.) 

It  has  not  been  possible  in  any  year  since  1914  for  Americans  to 
purchase  as  many  units  of  goods  in  general  for  a  dollar  as  they  could 
from  1910  to  1914.  The  supply  of  money  and  credit  from  1914  to 
1920  increased  faster  than  the  trade  demands  for  it  and  chiefly  as  a 
result  of  this  fact  the  value  of  money,  or  its  purchasing  power,  fell. 
As  a  result  of  this  decline  in  the  value  of  money,  at  least  two  dollars 
were  necessary  in  1918,  1919,  and  1920  to  buy  goods  in  general  which 
could  have  been  bought  for  one  dollar  in  1914.  This  being  the  case, 
the  dollars  which  grape  growers  received  in  these  years  were  worth 
in  purchasing  power  less  than  half  those  which  they  had  received  and 
spent  before  1914. 


88  UNIVERSITY   OF    CALIFORNIA — EXPERIMENT    STATION 

In  order  to  approximate  what  California  growers  got  per  ton  for 
their  grapes  in  terms  of  general  purchasing  power,  changes  in  the 
value  of  the  dollar  have  been  eliminated  by  the  best  method  at  present 
available  to  economists  and  statisticians.  The  upper  solid  line  in 
figure  23  shows  the  actual  prices  received.  The  dashed  line  shows 
these  same  prices  after  they  have  been  converted  to  purchasing  power, 
that  is,  deflated,  or  expressed  in  terms  of  dollars  of  the  average  value 
or  purchasing  power  for  the  period  1910-1914.  The  fluctuations  pic- 
tured in  this  curve  of  purchasing  power  per  ton  represent,  therefore, 
price  changes  which  have  resulted  primarily  from  changes  in  the 
supply  of,  or  the  demand  for,  grapes;  or  from  coincident  changes  in 
both. 


Purchos/ng  fbwer  of  Chafavguo  -  Erie  Grapes,    /900  ~  /9Z6,    and 
Malaga  -  Tokay  Average  f.o.b.    Ca/ifomia,    /9/0  -  /9Z6 . 


Fig.  24. — The  purchasing  powers  of  California  and  eastern  table  grapes  have 
moved  up  and  down  together  rather  consistently  since  1910.  (Data  from  tables 
18  and  19,  pp.  86  and  89.) 

The  purchasing  power  of  California  table  grapes  averaged  $43 
per  ton  for  the  nine  years  1910-1918,  showing  a  very  slight  trend 
downward  during  the  period,  just  as  raisin  prices  did.43  From  1917 
to  1921,  however,  their  purchasing  power  per  ton  more  than  doubled, 
rising  rapidly  from  about  $30  to  nearly  $70,  and  averaging  $54  for  the 
five  years,  1918-1922.  The  purchasing  power  fell  extremely  rapidly 
from  1921  to  1925,  in  which  latter  year  it  was  less  than  $30  per  ton, 
or  considerably  less  than  one-half  of  the  1921  value.  With  the  im- 
mediate outlook  for  crops  at  least  as  large  as  the  enormous  tonnages 
of  1925  and  1926,44  there  seems  little  reason  to  believe  that  the  price 
and  purchasing  power  of  California  table  grapes  will  not  remain 
relatively  low  for  several  years  to  come. 

The  curves  of  both  price  and  purchasing  power  of  table  grapes 
illustrate  the  general  principle  that  violent  and  prolonged  upward 
swings  in  prices  and  purchasing  power  of  a  commodity  are  likely  to 

43  See  discussion  on  pp.  103-106.  44  See  discussion,  pp.  31-35. 


Bul.  429] 


ECONOMIC   STATUS   OF   THE   GRAPE   INDUSTRY 


89 


be  followed  in  due  time  by  several  years  of  unprofitably  low  prices. 
Such  an  occurrence  is  usually  an  indication  of  over-production.  The 
price  curves  pictured  in  figures  26  and  29,  pages  92  and  104,  tell  much 
the  same  price  history  for  other  kinds  of  grapes  as  the  chart  discussed 
above. 

TABLE  19 
Estimated  Commercial  Output,  Price,  and  Purchasing  Power  of 
Chautauqua-Erie  Grapes,  1900-1926 


Year 


1910-1914 
average 

1900 

1901 

1902 

1903 

1904 

1905 

1906 

1907 

1908 

1909 

1910 

1911 

1912 

1913 

1914 

1915 

1916 

1917 

1918 

1919 

1920 

1921 

1922 

1923 

1924 

1925 

1926 

1927 


Commercial  output 


Carloads 
of  10 

tons 


6,734 

7,669 
7,594 
5,062 
2,952 
7,479 
5,362' 
5,634 
5,186 
4,232 
7,561 
5,700 
8,100 
7,528 
3,957 
8,386 
7,072 
4,307 
4,797 
2,087 
4,921 
5,350 
1,376 
7,857 
3,945 
5,200 
3,279 


Per  cent 

of 
1910-1914 


100 

114 

113 
75 
44 

111 
80 
84 
77 
63 

112 
85 

120 

112 
59 

124 

105 
64 
71 
31 
73 
79 
20 

117 
59 
77 
49 

122 


Estimated  value 


Dollars 


2,319  008 

1,200,500 
1,659,646 
1,694,226 
1,100,000 
2,150,000 
1,776,248 
2,482,822 
2,400,000 
1,640,000 
2,085,000 
2,200,000 
2,384,000 
2,315,036 
2,088,590 
2,607,415 
2,279,475 
2,344,653 
2,571,326 
2,200,905 
4,622,411 
6,854,740 
1,702,260 
5,490,900 
2,367,240 
3,117,240 
2,951,460 
2,544,332 


Per  cent 

of 
1910-1914 


100 

52 

72 

73 

47 

93 

77 

107 

104 

71 

90 

95 

103 

100 

90 

113 

98 

101 

111 

95 

200 

296 

74 

237 

102 

134 

127 

110 


Price 
per  ton 


Dollars 


37 

16 
22 
34 
37 
29 
33 
44 
46 
39 
28 
39 
30 
31 
53 
31 
32 
54 
54 
105 
94 
128 
124 
70 
60 
60 
90 
31 


Purchasing  power 


Per  ton 
Dollars 


37 


Per  cent 

of 
1910-1914 


100 

51 

73 
108 
114 

89 
103 
130 
130 
114 

76 
103 

87 

84 
141 

84 

84 
114 

81 
143 
122 
151 
224 
124 
103 
105 
151 

54 


U.  S.  all- 
commodi- 
ty whole- 
sale price 
index 


100 


91 
96 
92 
99 
103 
95 
101 
102 
100 
103 
129 


210 
230 
150 
152 
156 
152 
162 
154 


Source  of  data: 

Cols.  1  and  3.  Years  1900-1915  from  Phillips,  H.  D.  Cooperative  marketing  in  the  Chautauqua-Erie 
grape  industry.  Cornell  Agr.  Exp.  Sta.  Memoir  28:14.  Sept.,  1919.  Data  on  output  and  value  for 
1910  and  on  value  for  1900  are  estimates  by  Phillips.  All  other  data  originally  compiled  from  annual 
estimates  made  and  published  by  the  Grape  Belt,  a  semi-weekly  newspaper  published  at  Dunkirk, 
New  York.    Years  1916-1926  from  the  Grape  Belt  3282:1.    Jan.  21,  1927. 

Col.  5.    Values  of  col.  3  divided  by  tons  from  col.  1. 

Col.  6.     Prices  per  ton  in  col.  5  divided  by  the  all-commodity  wholesale  price  indexes  in  col.  8. 

Col.  8.  U.  S.  Bureau  of  Labor  Statistics  all-commodity  wholesale  price  index  for  the  United  States 
for  calendar  years  converted  to  a  1910-1914  base  of  100  per  cent.  From  U.  S.  Bur.  Agr.  Econ.  Agricul- 
tural Situation  92:8.    Feb.,  1927. 

Returns  for  Eastern  and  California  Table  Grapes  Compared. — 
The  fairly  close  relationship  between  the  price  of  eastern  grapes  and 


90 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


of  California  table  grapes  is  shown  in  figure  24.  The  curves  pictured 
therein  are  representative  of  the  price  of  these  two  kinds  of  grapes, 
and  indicate  that  there  is  a  general  tendency  for  prices  of  the  two 
to  move  up  and  down  together.  The  average  prices  of  the  two  for  the 
same  season,  however,  have  seldom  been  the  same.45    Apparently  the 


California.    Shipments     of     Table    Grapes     and    Purchasing 

Power    of    Malaga  -    Tokay    Average,      1910  -  19Z5. 

(In     Per-c&n-rag^    erf    Normal ) 

^+ZO 

1 

a. 

k 

-10 

1 

^-20 
<0 

- 

Po. 

>~<:ha 

sing 

Pow 

s/~ — 

v 

t 

\ 
\ 

k 

V 

Q 

- 

i 

\ 

i 
/ 

/ 

r 

\ 
\ 
\ 
\ 

\ 

\ 
\     1 
\1 

\ 

1 
1 
/ 

/ 

\         i 
\      I 

,S 

/ 
( 

\    / 

y 

/    \ 

/ 

A 
/  \ 

/ 

\ 
\ 
\ 
\ 

1 

1 

1 
1 

f  \ 

^ 

\ 

'        \ 

T 

\ 
\ 

1 
1 

Shi 

pme 

n+s- 

\ 
\ 

\ 
\ 

- 

\ 

\ 

19IO      1 

1          IZ         13         14         15          ie         17         18         19         ZO        Zl         Z2        Z3        ZA        ZS        Z6 

Fig.  25. — The  fact  that  the  purchasing  power  of  table-grape  varieties  has  in 
past  years  usually  fallen  below  normal  when  shipments  were  above  normal  and 
vice  versa,  is  a  basis  for  predicting  prices  from  forecasts  of  production  and  prob- 
able shipments.  (See  footnote,  p.  91,  for  source  of  data  and  method  of  compu- 
tation.) 

purchasing  power  per  ton  of  eastern  grapes  showed  no  special  trend 
either  upward  or  downward  from  1900  to  1917.  Very  likely  this  fact 
was  largely  true  of  California  table  grapes  during  this  whole  period. 
From  1917  to  1921  both  California  and  eastern-grape  prices  and  pur- 
chasing power  rose  together  with  startling  rapidity.     Since  1921  they 

45  The  absolute  prices  shown  in  figure  24  may  not  be  strictly  comparable  in  any 
given  year.  The  price  of  California  table  grapes  is  an  estimated  f.o.b.  price. 
Inquiry  lias  failed  to  reveal,  however,  whether  the  Chautauqua-Erie  figure  is  an 
f.o.b.  or  a  farm  price.  It  is  believed,  however,  that  the  Chautauqua-Erie  price  is 
reliably  representative  of  the  relative  changes  from  year  to  year  of  the  price  of 
the  bulk  of  eastern  grapes.  Prices  for  1904-1926  agreeing  reasonably  closely 
with  those  in  table  19  are  given  by  Stover,  II.  J.  Some  Factors  Affecting  the 
Purchasing  Power  of  Grapes.  Cornell  Dept.  Agr.  Econ.  and  Farm  Mgt.,  Farm 
Economics  No.  45:  693.     June,  1927. 


BUL.  429]  ECONOMIC  STATUS  OF  THE  GRAPE  INDUSTRY  91 

have  both  shown  the  same  tendency  to  decline  very  rapidly,  primarily 
because  of  the  rapidly  increasing  commercial  grape  production. 

Effect  of  Variations  in  Table-Grape  Supply  Upon  Purchasing 
Power. — The  two  curves  pictured  in  figure  2546  show  in  a  striking 
manner  that  since  1910  there  has  hardly  been  an  exception  to  the  rule 
that  when  shipments  of  table-grape  varieties  have  risen  above  normal, 
purchasing  power  per  ton  has  fallen  below  normal,  or  that  vice  versa, 
when  shipments  have  fallen  below  normal,  purchasing  power  has  risen 
above  normal.  The  inverse  correlation  between  shipments  of  Califor- 
nia table  grapes  and  their  purchasing  power  as  pictured  in  this  figure 
is  — ■  0.823,  indicating  that  66  per  cent  of  the  variation  in  the  purchas- 
ing power  of  table  grapes  can  be  accounted  for  by  changes  in  ship- 
ments. This  relationship  is  of  considerable  practical  importance  as 
a  basis  for  forecasting  what  the  price  in  a  given  season  is  likely  to 
be  as  soon  as  estimates  of  probable  production  for  that  season  are 
available.47 

Table  Varieties  Fluctuate  Together.48 — The  purchasing  power  of 
each  of  the  four  most  important  table  varieties  is  shoAvn  separately 
in  the  four  curves  in  the  upper  right  hand  corner  of  figure  26.  The 
three  upper  lines  which  run  so  close  together  represent  Malagas, 
Tokays,  and  Cornichons.  The  differences  in  the  prices  of  the  three 
have  been  very  small  compared  with  the  differentials  between  wine 
varieties.  Since  1921  Tokays  have  brought  the  highest  average  price 
in  every  year  but  one,  and  Malagas  the  lowest  in  all  but  two  years. 
The  fact  that  a  large  proportion  of  Malagas  are  shipped  as  juice  stock 
probably  accounts  in  part  for  their  lower  average  price,  since  the 
quality  of  juice  stock  is,  on  the  whole,  lower  than  that  of  table  stock. 


46  Data  plotted  in  figure  25  are  percentage  deviations  from  a  line  of  trend 
fitted  to  the  data  from  which  table-grape  shipments  in  table  8,  page  46,  were 
derived  and  from  a  simple  average  of  the  purchasing  power  of  Malaga-Tokay 
grapes,  1910-1925,  given  in  col.  17,  table  18,  page  86. 

47  The  commercial  value  of  better  price  forecasting  is  so  obvious  that  there  is 
no  doubt  that  those  interested  in  the  grape  industry  will  appreciate  the  desirability 
of  fostering  intensive  studies  of  the  factors  that  influence  grape  prices.  Califor- 
nia Experiment  Station  Bulletin  419  on  the  ''Economic  Aspects  of  the  Cantaloupe 
Industry, ' '  recently  completed  by  Emil  Kauchenstein  of  the  Division  of  Agricul- 
tural Economics,  illustrates  the  practical  possibilities  of  measuring  the  factors 
determining  the  prices  of  perishable  commodities.  Dr.  Kauchenstein  has  computed 
two  regression  equations.  One  makes  it  possible  to  forecast  with  considerable 
accuracy  next  year 's  probable  cantaloupe  acreage  in  the  Imperial  Valley  on  the 
basis  of  this  year 's  average  cantaloupe  prices.  The  other  enables  shippers  at  any 
given  time  during  the  shipping  season  to  forecast  the  probable  wholesale  price 
in  New  York  City  of  Imperial  Valley  cantaloupes  for  the  following  week  on  the 
basis  of  estimated  carlot  receipts  and.  maximum  temperatures  in  that  market. 

48  Lack  of  available  data  has  made  it  necessary  to  omit  the  prices  of  Em- 
perors. The  authors  would  appreciate  being  put  in  touch  with  anyone  having 
reliable  series  of  prices  for  Emperors,  in  crates,  kegs,  or  drums,  for  any  or  all 
of  the  years  1910  through  1926. 


92 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


I 


Sis 
J5 


\ 

4 

1 

> 

\ 

0 

jt 

'}( 

\ 

-s — 

1 
1 

5 

IE 

' 

\ 

i 

• 

/      / 

f      t 

t 
/ 

/ 

j 

0) 

1 
i 

j    / 

■< 

_  <o 

1 

■3        > 

// 

f  <* 

i 

i 

i 

\ 
\ 
[        \ 
\       \ 

1 
I 

5Q 

§ 
<* 

S3 
1$. 

!  \ 

i 

eg, 

1 

BUL.  429]  ECONOMIC  STATUS  OF  THE  GRAPE  INDUSTRY  93 

Raisin  Varieties. — The  curves  of  the  purchasing  power  of  Muscats 
and  Thompson  Seedless,  shown  in  the  lower  left-hand  corner  of  figure 
26,  are  much  flatter  than  those  for  wine  and  table  varieties.  Likewise, 
there  seems  to  be  no  apparent  tendency  for  either  one  uniformly  to 
bring  more  than  the  other.  In  some  years  Muscats  have  been  higher 
in  average  price  than  Thompson  Seedless,  and  in  other  years  the 
reverse  has  been  true. 

Very  few  fresh  raisin  grapes  were  shipped  to  eastern  markets 
before  1917,  and  hence  the  curve  of  raisin  purchasing  power,  in 
figure  29,  page  104,  is  the  only  indication  of  the  trend  of  growers' 
returns  prior  to  1917.  The  curve  in  the  lower  right-hand  corner  of 
figure  26  showing  the  purchasing  power  of  fresh  raisin  grapes  brings 
out  the  fact  that,  of  the  three  classes  of  grapes,  raisin  grapes  have 
been  the  lowest  in  price  in  every  year  from  1917  to  date.  The  relative 
flatness  and  smoothness  of  the  raisin  curve  shows  that  fluctuations 
in  the  average  annual  price  of  raisin  grapes  have  been  smaller  than 
have  those  in  the  prices  of  wine  and  table  grapes.  The  differences  in 
the  price  of  Muscats  and  of  Thompson  Seedless,  when  averaged,  have 
made  a  smoother  curve  than  for  either  variety  alone.  From  1917 
through  1923  the  annual  average  f.o.b.  California  purchasing  power 
per  ton  of  fresh  raisin  grapes  varied  between  $30  and  $40,  and  for 
four  years  during  this  period  it  held  steadily  above  $35.  For  the  last 
three  years  it  has  been  between  $15  and  $20  a  ton  only,  in  purchasing 
power,  which,  at  the  prevailing  general  price  level,  has  meant  an 
approximate  f.o.b.  price  of  between  $25  and  $30  a  ton.49 

Wine  Varieties  Fluctuate  Together,  with  Alicante  Highest. — With 
but  few  exceptions,  the  prices  of  each  of  the  five  chief  wine-grape 
varieties,  plotted  in  the  upper  left-hand  corner  of  figure  26,  have  in 
general  fluctuated  up  and  down  together.  Alicante  Bouschet,  how- 
ever, have  consistently  commanded  a  rather  large  differential  over 
the  other  wine  varieties.  In  1922  this  variety  returned  in  purchasing 
power  per  ton  over  $25  more  than  the  wine  variety  bringing  the  next 


49  The  following  quotation  from  the  Associated  Grower  (68:  28,  August,  1924) 
gives  a  basis  for  a  rough  comparison  of  returns  for  fresh  raisin  grapes  with  those 
from  the  raisins.  ' '  About  four  tons  of  grapes  having  24  per  cent  sugar  will  make 
one  ton  of  raisins,  if  they  are  properly  cured.  If  you  are  considering  selling  fresh, 
you  must  not  forget  the  sugar  percentage  factor.  If  you  pick  your  grapes  and 
sell  them  when  they  have  only  18  or  20  per  cent  sugar,  it  may  take  about  five 
tons  fresh  to  equal  one  ton  cured;  in  other  words,  the  five  tons  left  on  the  vines 
until  they  had  24  per  cent  sugar  would  make  nearly  a  ton  and  a  quarter  of  raisins. 

"In  the  matter  of  cost  of  harvest,  it  costs  just  about  the  same  [probably  some- 
what more]  to  pick  and  deliver  four  tons  of  fresh  grapes  as  it  does  to  pick,  turn, 
stack,  box  and  haul  one  ton  of  raisins,  so  that  four  tons  of  fresh  grapes  with 
24  per  cent  sugar  sold  at  $20  a  ton  would  bring  you  as  much  as  4  cents  a  pound 
for  raisins.  If  you  pick  them  with  18  to  20  per  cent  sugar  and  sell  them  for 
$20  per  ton,  they  would  net  you  about  the  same  as  3^  cents  a  pound  for  raisins." 


94  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

highest  price.  High  returns  to  the  grower  of  Alicante  Bouschet  have 
led  to  a  more  rapid  increase  in  the  production  and  shipments  of  this 
variety  than  of  other  wine  varieties,50  and  as  a  result  the  price 
premium  on  this  variety  is  tending  to  decrease.  In  1926  Alicantes 
brought  only  about  $10  a  ton  more  than  Carignanes,  which,  judging 
by  its  usual  price,  is  the  variety  next  in  public  favor  for  juice  pur- 
poses. 

Figure  26  shows  that  the  eastern  delivered-auction  prices  of  wine 
and  table  grapes  have  moved  up  and  down  together  rather  consistently 
since  1917.  The  price  of  wine  grapes  has  averaged  above  that  of 
table  grapes  in  every  year  since  1917.  The  rapid  increase  in  ship- 
ments of  wine-grape  varieties  in  the  last  few  years,  however,  will 
probably  result  in  their  price  falling  to  about  that  of  table-grape 
varieties  within  the  next  few  years. 

In  comparing  the  f.o.b.  price  and  purchasing  power  of  wine  and 
table-grape  varieties  it  should  be  remembered  that  the  cost  of  packing 
wine  grapes  in  the  field  is  substantially  lower  than  the  cost  of  packing 
table  grapes  in  crates  in  the  packing  house.  Some  estimate  that  it 
costs  $10  or  $12  per  ton  more  for  the  package  and  packing  of  table 
grapes  in  lidded  crates  than  for  the  package  and  packing  of  wine 
grapes  in  unlidded  lugs  in  the  field.  As  a  result,  returns  per  ton  to 
the  grower  at  the  ranch  for  wine  grapes  in  lugs  compared  with  table 
grapes  in  crates  is  more  favorable  by  $10  or  $12  than  a  comparison 
of  the  f.o.b.  prices  of  wine  grapes  in  lugs  and  table  grapes  in  crates 
would  indicate. 

A  comparison  of  the  pre-war  farm  price  and  purchasing  power 
per  ton  of  wine  grapes  with  those  during  the  peak  of  high  prices 
since  the  war  makes  it  clear  why  California's  plantings  and  ship- 
ments of  wine  grapes  have  been  so  greatly  increased  in  the  last  few 
years.  It  is  estimated51  that  the  average  farm  price  and  purchasing 
power  of  wine  grapes  in  California  from  1909  to  1916  was  approxi- 
mately $10  per  ton.  The  highest  annual  average  price  since  the  war 
is  estimated  at  about  $80  per  ton  in  1921,  and  of  purchasing  power 
over  $50  per  ton  in  terms  of  dollars  of  pre-war  value.  Returns  to 
growers  of  Alicante  Bouschet,  it  must  not  be  forgotten,  were  much 
greater  than  even  these  high  averages,  in  many  instances  almost 
beyond  belief.  The  average  estimated  farm  price  of  California  wine 
grapes  for  the  last  eight  years  has  been  about  $60  a  ton,  which  has 


50  For  discussion  see  page  48. 

si  Estimates  of  farm  prices  for  the  years  1909-1918  are- the  authors'  and  for 
1919-1926  are  those  of  the  California  Crop  Eeporting  Service.  See  California 
Crop  Report  for  1925,  Calif.  Dept.  Agr.  Spec.  Pub.  63:  27.  1926,  and  Preliminary 
Summary  of  California  Annual  Crop  Report  for  1926:  3   (mimeo.)   Jan.  5,  1927. 


Bul.  429]  ECONOMIC  STATUS  OF  THE  GRAPE  INDUSTRY  95 

had  a  purchasing  power  equivalent  of  three  or  four  times  the  average 
returns  from  1909  to  1917. 

The  average  farm  price  of  California  table  varieties  for  the  same 
eight  years  has  been  about  $50,  or  somewhat  less  than  that  of  wine 
varieties.  The  farm  price  of  table  grapes  has,  however,  fallen  much 
lower  than  that  of  wine  grapes  in  the  last  few  years.  Estimates 
indicate  that  in  1925  the  farm  price  of  wine  varieties  averaged  about 
$60,  and  in  1926  about  $45,  whereas  table  varieties  averaged  only 
between  $20  and  $25  a  ton  in  these  two  years. 


PRICE  OUTLOOK  AND  PROBLEMS  OF  ADJUSTMENT 

Forecast  of  the  Bureau  of  Agricultural  Economics. — The  con- 
clusions drawn  from  this  study  regarding  the  outlook  for  the  United 
States  grape  industry  are  emphasized  by  those  in  the  Agricultural 
Outlook  for  1927, 52  which  states  that  "grape  production  is  expected 
to  continue  heavy,  and  it  would  seem  unwise  to  set  out  new  vineyards 
except  where  conditions  are  extremely  favorable."  In  California 
"prospective  production  from  vineyards  which  have  not  reached  full 
bearing  is  so  great  ....  that  the  problem  of  finding  a  satisfactory 
market  during  the  next  few  years  will  probably  continue  difficult." 

Danger  of  Judging  the  Future  by  the  Present. — Both  the  high 
prices  and  the  high  purchasing  power  of  grapes  from  1919  through 
1922  were  largely  responsible  for  undue  expansion  of  grape  acreage 
and  production.  With  low  prices  and  purchasing  power  of  grapes 
in  the  past  two  years,  the  industry  is  reaping  the  effects  of  heavy 
plantings  made  during  this  period  of  high  prices.  The  facts  indicate 
that,  at  a  time  of  abnormally  high  prices  or  purchasing  power,  it  is 
likely  to  prove  unprofitable  to  growers  to  expand  acreage  which  will 
not  come  into  full-bearing  until  several  years  in  the  future,  when 
market  prices  are  likely  to  be  depressed  by  an  increased  harvest  from 
young  vines  coming  into  bearing.  It  is  obvious  that  because  prices 
were  high  in  1921  was  no  reason  to  conclude  that  they  would  be  high 
four  or  five  years  hence.  Thousands,  however,  must  have  planted 
grape  vines  in  1921  on  the  assumption  that  grape  prices  were  not 
likely  to  be  much  lower  when  these  vines  came  into  bearing.53 


52  U.  S.  Bur.  Agr.  Econ.  Staff.  The  agricultural  outlook  for  1927.  U.  S.  Dept. 
Agr.,  Misc.  Cir.  101:  4,  34.     February,  1927. 

53  In  1921  E.  L.  Nougaret,  Viticulturist  in  the  California  Department  of  Agri- 
culture, pointed  out  the  serious  probability  of  unprontably  low  prices  for  raisin 
and  table  grapes  in  the  near  future  as  a  result  of  rapidly  expanding  production 
and  the  small  likelihood  of  a  corresponding  increase  in  demand.  (Status  of  the 
California  Grape  Industry,  June  30,  1921,  pp.  14-22,  1922.) 


96  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

Heavy  Supplies  of  Fruit  Consistently  Tend  to  Depress  Prices. — 
The  dominant  influence  of  heavy  supplies  upon  the  market  prices  of 
fruit  is  strikingly  illustrated  by  the  results  of  available  analyses  of 
the  statistics  of  the  California  fruit  industry.  That  California  raisin 
prices  tend  to  be  low  in  years  when  supplies  are  large  and  high  when 
supplies  are  relatively  small,  is  shown  by  figure  30,  page  106.  The 
data  pictured  in  figure  30,  page  106,  indicate  that  about  66  per  cent 
of  the  fluctuations  in  the  purchasing  power  of  California  table  grapes 
are  due  to  decreases  or  increases  in  market  supplies.  Rauchenstein54 
has  found  a  close  correlation  between  New  York  prices  of  cantaloupes 
and  weekly  average  carlot  receipts.  Approximately  88  per  cent  of 
the  variations  in  average  weekly  prices  for  the  years  1921  to  1926 
are  apparently  accounted  for  by  these  factors.  How  closely  the  price 
of  all  fruits  is  apparently  affected  by  the  production  of  all  fruits  is 
well  illustrated  by  the  statistics  of  California's  fruit  and  nut  industry. 
Preliminary  computations  by  Rauchenstein  indicate  that  in  the  last 
eight  years,  1919-1926,  about  86  per  cent  of  the  variation  in  the 
annual  average  purchasing  power  per  ton  of  all  California  fruits  and 
nuts  can  be  accounted  for  by  changes  in  total  state  production  of  these 
crops. 

A  knowledge  of  such  relationships  is  of  the  greatest  practical 
value  as  a  basis  for  stabilizing  an  industry.  It  makes  it  possible,  as 
soon  as  estimates  of  probable  production  are  available,  to  forecast  with 
a  considerable  degree  of  success  what  the  price  is  likely  to  be  in  any 
particular  season  and,  on  the  basis  of  such  forecasts,  to  adjust  farm 
management  and  marketing  practices  to  make  the  most  of  the  fore- 
casted situation.  Likewise,  by  enabling  one  to  see  more  clearly  the 
probable  effect  of  future  increases  in  supply  upon  future  prices,  it 
provides  a  basis  of  forecasted  facts  of  sufficient  definiteness  to  justify 
their  use  by  growers  and  others  in  making  adjustments  in  production 
or  marketing  by  which  they  can  make  the  most  of  the  unfavorable 
financial  outlook  which  many  growers  of  California  fruits  appar- 
ently face  in  the  next  few  years. 

The  results  of  the  studies  mentioned  indicate  a  marked  tendency 
for  the  purchasing  power  of  most  California  fruits  to  fall  appreciably 
as  the  result  of  significant  increases  in  supply.  The  seriousness  of 
this  close  inverse  relationship  between  variations  in  California's  fruit 
output  and  the  prices  received  by  growers  is  evident  when'  one  con- 
siders the  fact  that  the  bearing  acreage  of  all  fruits  and  nuts  in  the 
state,  including  grapes,  increased  about  68  per  cent  from  1919  to  1926 
and  in  1929  promises  to  be  probably  85  per  cent  greater  than  in  1919. 


54  See  page  91. 


Bul.  429 


ECONOMIC   STATUS   OF   THE   GRAPE   INDUSTRY 


97 


Pelo~rfv&   Perch  os/'ncp    Po\~/&r    of~  Ch/e-f    Form    Produces    oF 
Cal/Ybrnia    <5rape- Producing    SecF/'ons  _,  1919  ~  I9Z6. 


Swine 


60 


ft    ?    n    N    ">    1    J>  « 


N    <$    Cy    ^    <K 


Fig.  27.- — Plans  for  the  adjustment  of  farm  organization  to  changing  economic 
conditions  should  recognize  that  in  no  year  have  the  prices  of  all  California's 
chief  farm  products  been  either  high  or  low,  nor  has  the  price  of  any  one  product 
continually  remained  high  or  low.     (Data  from  table  26,  p.  122.) 


98  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

Prices  of  Alternative  Farm  Products  in  California  Grape  Sections, 
1919-1926. — Just  what  the  grape  grower  should  do,  who  finds  himself 
unable  to  produce  grapes  at  the  low  prices  that  have  prevailed  during 
the  past  two  years  and  that  are  likely  to  prevail  in  the  near  future, 
is  a  serious  and  difficult  problem.  In  order  to  make  the  most  intelli- 
gent decisions,  growers  should  have  a  reasonably  good  picture  of 
the  various  alternatives  which  are  open  to  them  as  individuals,  and 
what  the  returns  are  likely  to  be.  The  market  outlook  in  the  near 
future  is  uncertain,  however,  for  many  of  the  farm  products  to  which 
grape  growers  might  turn  in  order  partially  and  perhaps  temporarily 
to  relieve  their  financial  difficulties.  Many  facts  are  needed  which 
are  not  now  available.  Few  realize  how  great  is  the  task  of  securing 
the  enormous  body  of  truly  adequate  and  relevant  facts. 

Figure  27  has  been  inserted  to  provide  a  general  idea  of  the 
relative  prices  for  the  past  eight  years  of  some  of  the  more  important 
products  that  are  grown  in  many  of  the  grape-producing  sections  of 
the  state.  The  most  striking  fact  that  the  price  curves  bring  out  is 
that  in  no  year  have  the  prices  of  all  the  products  pictured  been  either 
high  or  low.  This  fact  suggests  the  possibility  of  growers  making 
their  incomes  more  nearly  equal  from  year  to  year  by  a  reasonable 
amount  of  diversification.  A  study  of  the  price  curves  shown  in 
figure  27  brings  out  the  fact  that  the  price  of  no  product  continually 
remains  high.  The  prices  of  most  farm  products  move  in  cycles,  some 
products  having  cycles  of  different  lengths  than  others.  One  cannot 
expect  future  prices  necessarily  to  be  what  they  have  been  in  recent 
years.  On  the  other  hand,  it  is  highly  improbable  that,  in  any  given 
year,  low  prices  would  prevail  for  all  of  the  crops  which  one  might 
produce  under  a  well-considered  program  of  diversification. 


THE    RAISIN    INDUSTRY 

Close  Relationship  between  Fresh-Grape  and  Raisin  Industries. — 
Although  this  publication  has  to  do  primarily  with  the  fresh-grape 
industry,  a  brief  discussion  of  the  economic  situation  of  the  raisin 
industry  is  included  at  this  point  as  a  basis  for  understanding  how 
the  fresh-grape  industry  and  the  raisin  industry  have  influenced  one 
another  in  the  past,  and  how  they  are  likely  to  influence  one  another 
in  the  future. 

The  California  grape  deal  of  1925  well  illustrates  the  close  relation- 
ship between  the  welfare  of  the  fresh  grape  industry  and  the  raisin 


BUL.  429]  ECONOMIC  STATUS  OF  THE  GRAPE   INDUSTRY  99 

industry.  Three  years  of  low  prices  for  raisins,  particularly  Muscats, 
accompanied  by  good  prices  for  wine  grapes  and  an  increasing  use 
of  Muscats  for  juice  purposes,  led  to  the  shipment  of  between  eight 
and  ten  thousand  cars  more  raisin  grapes  to  eastern  markets  in  1925 
than  in  1924.  The  early  winter  in  the  East  cut  the  demand  for  grapes 
for  wine-making  purposes  much  earlier  than  usual.  This  fact, 
together  with  an  increase  of  about  16,000  cars  of  all  kinds  of  fresh- 
grape  shipments,  of  which  raisin  grapes  were  well  over  one-half,  was 
largely  responsible  for  the  serious  slump  in  the  prices  of  all  varieties 
which  occurred  toward  the  end  of  the  shipping  season.  On  the  other 
hand,  the  fact  that  over  30  per  cent  of  the  total  raisin-grape  output 
of  the  state  was  shipped  fresh,  reduced  the  raisin  output  of  the  state 
sufficiently  to  relieve  the  dried  market  materially  and  raise  the  price 
of  raisins.  As  a  result  of  their  1925  experience,  growers  shipped  a 
considerably  smaller  proportion  of  their  fresh  raisin  grapes  east  in 
1926,  resulting  in  a  proportionally  greater  volume  dried,  especially 
since  about  8,500  tons  more  Malaga  raisins  were  produced  than  in 
1925.55 

Increasing  Shipments  of  Fresh  Raisin  Grapes. — In  addition  to  the 
major  portion  of  the  raisin-grape  tonnage  of  the  state  accounted  for 
as  dried  in  figure  28,  an  increasingly  large  percentage  of  both  Thomp- 
son Seedless  and  Muscats  were  shipped  east  in  the  fresh  state  from 
1919  to  1925.  This  was  largely  a  result  of  the  great  demand  for 
juice  grapes,  coupled  with  the  low  prices  which  growers  had  been 
receiving  for  their  dried  product.  The  chief  reason  for  the  decline 
of  the  dried-Muscat  output  in  1925  to  about  47,000  tons,  or  about 
half  of  the  tonnage  dried  in  1923,  was  the  use  in  the  East  of  fresh 
shipments  amounting  to  over  55  per  cent  of  a  total  Muscat  production 
which  otherwise  might  have  been  about  110,000  dried  tons,  not  includ- 
ing a  considerable  tonnage  unharvested. 

The  increase  in  fresh  shipments  of  Thompson  Seedless  (Sultanina) 
since  the  war  has  been  less  striking  than  that  of  Muscats.  Approxi- 
mately 8,000  cars,  or  about  18  per  cent  of  the  total  production  of  this 
variety,  was  shipped  fresh  in  1925,  in  contrast  with  about  550  cars, 
or  less  than  3  per  cent,  in  1919.  Had  all  of  the  Muscat  and  Thompson 
Seedless  grapes  which  were  shipped  fresh  in  1925  been  converted  to 
raisins,  California's  total  dried  output  would  have  been  about  295,000 
tons  instead  of  200,000.  Including  the  estimated  tonnage  of  raisin 
grapes  unharvested,  California  actually  produced  an  equivalent  of 
about  305,000  tons  of  raisins  in  1925  and  about  315,000  tons  in  1926. 


ss  Calif.  Crop  Report  (mimeo.),  Nov.  1,  1926:3. 


100 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


California  Paisin  Production  By  Varieties,  i9i3  ~/9Z5. 

Thousands   of  Tons  and  Percentage    of  lafa/   Crop. 


300 


300 


14         /5         /<d         17         18  /9         20         21        22        23        2A        25 


Fig.  28. — Although  California's  production  of  both  Muscat  and  Thompson 
Seedless  raisins  has  increased  enormously  since  1913,  Thompson  Seedless  output 
has  increased  relatively  much  more  rapidly  than  Muscats.  Only  14  per  cent  of 
the  raisin  output  in  1913  were  Thompsons  and  in  1925  only  14  per  cent  were 
Muscats.     (Data  from  table  20,  p.  101.) 


Bul.  429] 


ECONOMIC  STATUS  OF  THE  GRAPE  INDUSTRY 


101 


Rapid  Increase  in  Thompson  Seedless  Raisins  Compared  with 
Muscats. — Estimates  of  the  output  of  California  raisins  by  varieties 
pictured  in  figure  28  show  clearly  the  rapid  increase  in  the  production 
of  Thompson  Seedless  grapes  in  the  state  since  1913  compared  with 
Muscats.  Thompson  Seedless  output  rose  from  less  than  10,000  tons — 
constituting  only  about  14  per  cent  of  the  total  1913  raisin  crop — to 
nearly  177,000  tons  in  1923,  or  61  per  cent  of  the  largest  raisin  crop 
in  the  history  of  California.  In  the  same  period  the  Muscat  output 
rose  from  about  49,000  tons  to  nearly  90,000  tons ;  but,  whereas  three- 
fourths  of  the  state's  raisin  production  were  Muscats  in  1913,  only 
slightly  over  30  per  cent  were  Muscats  in  1923.  For  the  last  three 
years,  1924-1926,  the  tonnage  of  both  Thompson  Seedless  and  Muscat 
raisins,  although  large,  has  been  less  than  the  1923  output.  The  per- 
centage of  Thompson  Seedless,  however,  rose  to  about  74  per  cent 
of  the  state  output  in  1926,  while  Muscats  fell  to  about  14  per  cent, 
the  same  proportion  that  Thompson  Seedless  raisins  were  of  the  total 
output  in  1913. 

TABLE  20 
California  Production  of  Raisins,  by  Varieties,  1913-1925 


Production  in  dried  tons 

Per  cent  of  total  production 

Thomp- 

Thomp- 

Year 

Total 

son 

Muscat 

Sultana 

Others 

son 

Muscat 

Sultana 

Others 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

1913 

66,000 

9,200 

49,300 

6,100 

1,400 

13.9 

74.8 

9.2 

2.1 

1914 

91,000 

18,000 

60,000 

9,000 

4,000 

19.8 

65.9 

9.9 

4.4 

1915 

128,000 

16,300 

102,300 

7,300 

2,100 

12.7 

80.0 

5.7 

1.6 

1916 

132,000 

30,500 

89,000 

7,000 

5,500 

23.1 

67.4 

5.3 

4.2 

1917 

163,000 

40,500 

104,000 

10,500 

8,000 

24.8 

63.9 

6.4 

4.9 

1918 

167,000 

48,800 

102,500 

11,700 

4,000 

29.2 

61  4 

7.0 

2.4 

1919 

182,500 

71,900 

91,800 

11,700 

7,100 

39.4 

50.3 

6.4 

3.9 

1920 

177,000 

69,500 

86,500 

12,700 

8,300 

39.2 

48.9 

7.2 

4.7 

1921 

145,000 

69,500 

58,900 

12,200 

4,400 

48  0 

40.6 

8.4 

3  0 

1922 

237,000 

130,100 

84,600 

16,900 

5,400 

54  9 

35.7 

7.1 

2.3 

1923 

290,000 

176,900 

89,600 

21,900 

1,600 

61.0 

30.9 

7.6 

0.5 

1924 

170,000 

110,200 

44,200 

12,200 

3,400 

64.8 

26.0 

7.2 

2.0 

1925 

200,000 

152,000 

28,000 

14,000 

6,000 

76.0 

14.0 

7.0 

3.0 

1926* 

260,000 

1927 

*  Data  for  1926  are  preliminary  and  subject  to  revision. 
Sources  of  data: 

Col.  1.  Years  1913-1918  from  Associated  Grower  5*:16.  Jan.,  1923.  Years  1919-1924  from  California 
Crop  Report  for  1925,  p.  26.  Years  1925-1926  from  mimeographed  Summary  of  California  Annual  Crop 
Report  for  1926  issued  Jan.  5,  1927. 

Cols.  2  to  5.  Years  1913-1921  from  Associated  Grower  5i;16.  Jan.,  1923,  except  that  figures  for  1919- 
1921  were  converted  to  percentages  and  applied  to  the  totals  given  in  col.  1.  Year  1922,  data  from  Cali- 
fornia Fruit  News,  Feb.  3,  1923,  p.  3,  converted  to  percentages  and  applied  to  totals  in  col.  1.  Year  1923, 
col.  5,  from  Nougaret,  R.  L.  California  Grape  Situation  in  1924  (Calif.  Dept.  Agr.  Spec.  Pub.  47:22. 
1924)  converted  to  percentages  of  total  crop;  balance  of  crop  allocated  to  varieties  on  basis  of  data  from 
Sun-Maid  Business,  Feb.  15,  1928,  p.  4.  Year  1924,  col.  5,  estimated  as  a  maximum  of  2  per  cent  of  total 
crop;  remainder  of  crop  apportioned  according  to  figures  from  Sun-Maid  Business,  June  15,  1926,  p.  5. 
Year  1925,  calculated  by  applying  the  percentages  in  cols.  6-9  to  col.  1.  These  percentages  for  1925  apply 
to  the  portion  of  the  crop  handled  by  the  Sun-Maid  Raisin  Growers. 


102  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

High  Thompson  Seedless  Prices  Have  Caused  Rapid  Increase  in 
Production. — A  comparison  of  the  prices  California  growers  have 
received  for  Muscat  and  Thompson  Seedless  raisins  from  1909  to 
date  as  shown  in  table  21,  page  105,  discloses  the  chief  reason  why 
Thompson  Seedless  production  has  increased  between  ten  and  fifteen 
fold  since  1913,  while  Muscat  production  has  not  even  doubled.  The 
growers'  returns  from  Thompson  Seedless  raisins  during  this  period 
have  consistently  been  several  dollars  more  per  ton  than  from  Mus- 
cats. During  the  peak  of  astoundingly  high  raisin  prices  in  1919, 
1920,  and  1921,  Thompson  Seedless  averaged  the  grower  over  $40  a 
ton  more  than  Muscats.  The  demand  for  Thompson  Seedless  for  fresh 
consumption  has  also  greatly  exceeded  that  for  Muscats,  which  variety, 
until  recently,  has  been  considered  almost  entirely  as  a  juice  grape 
when  shipped  fresh.56 

Statistical  Story  of  California  Raisin  Industry,  1909-1926?1 — In 
order  to  visualize  adequately  the  probable  outlook  for  the  fresh-grape 
industry  of  California,  it  is  necessary  to  study  what  has  happened 
and  what  is  likely  to  happen  to  the  raisin  industry,  not  only  of  this 
state,  but  also  of  the  world.  The  close  relationship  between  the  wel- 
fare of  our  fresh-grape  industry  and  of  the  raisin  industry  makes  such 
a  consideration  essential  to  intelligent  planning  and  readjustments 
in  both  industries.  A  survey  of  the  statistical  story  of  the  raisin 
industry  of  the  state  from  1909  to  date  as  shown  in  figures  28,  29  and 
30,  pages  100,  104  and  106,  will  help  to  make  clear  why  raisin  growers 
have  found  themselves  in  such  a  precarious  financial  situation  since 
1922,  when  raisin  prices  dropped  so  low.  It  will  also  throw  light  on 
the  causes  of  the  rapidly  increasing  shipments  of  fresh  raisin  grapes 
to  our  eastern  markets  in  recent  years.  The  effect  of  raisin  prices 
on  production,  exports,  imports,  and  consumption  from  1909  to  date, 


eeSchultz,  C.  E.     California  Grape  Deal  for  1925:  4.      (mimeo.)      July,  1926. 

57  Sources  of  Eaisin  Data  before  1909. — A  chart  showing  curves  of  United 
States  production  and  imports  of  all  raisins,  1872-1925;  exports,  1898-1924;  and 
of  seeded-raisin  production,  1896-1924  is  given  in  the  United  States  Department 
of  Agriculture  Yearbook  for  1925,  page  282,  in  an  article  on  grape  production 
in  the  United  States,  by  George  C.  Husmann.  The  actual  data,  however,  do  not 
accompany  this  figure.  The  1911  number  of  the  Statistical  Report  of  the  Cali- 
fornia State  Board  of  Agriculture,  pages  152-155,  gives : 

(1)  Annual  estimates  of  the  seeded  raisin  output  of  the  state,  1896-1911; 

(2)  The  quantity  and  value  of  raisin  imports  into  the  United  States  annually, 
1851-1868  and  1884-1911; 

(3)  The  quantity  and  value  of  currant  imports  annually,  1851-1868  and 
1891-1911;  and 

(4)  The  quantity  and  value  of  raisin  exports  from  the  United  States  annually, 
1898-1911. 

Imports  and  exports  for  recent  years  are  conveniently  compiled  in  the  United 
States  Department  of  Agriculture  Yearbooks  and  in  the  Annual  Statistical  Review 
numbers  of  the  California  Fruit  News. 


BUL.  429]  ECONOMIC  STATUS  OF  THE  GRAPE  INDUSTRY  103 

and  the  reverse  effect  of  these  same  factors  on  prices  are  the  most 
significant  relationships  shown  in  the  pictures  under  consideration. 

Post-War  Inflation  of  Raisin  Prices  and  the  Following  Depres- 
sion.— The  purchasing  power  per  ton  of  raisins,  shown  in  figure  29 
in  terms  of  dollars  of  pre-war  value,  manifested  a  tendency  to  decline 
from  1911  to  1918.  Production  and  consumption  during  the  same 
period  were  rising  rapidly,  and  apparently  more  rapidly  than  domes- 
tic demand  at  stable  prices,  judging  by  the  declining  purchasing 
power  of  raisins  and  the  increasing  volume  of  exports.  The  outlook 
for  the  raisin  industry  in  1918  did  not  seem  to  justify  marked  expan- 
sion of  acreage  and  production  unless  growers  were  able  to  produce 
with  profit  at  the  prevailing  purchasing  power  or  slightly  lower. 
However,  as  a  result  of  the  war  the  Turkish  raisin  crop  was  tempo- 
rarily removed  from  the  world  market,  and  prohibition  suddenly  and 
greatly  stimulated  the  demand  at  home,  resulting  in  inordinately  high 
prices  for  the  three  years  1919-1921. 

Unmindful  of  the  fact  that  there  was  little  assurance  of  being 
able  to  continue  selling  an  increasing  output  at  such  profitable  prices, 
thousands  plunged  blindly  into  raisin-grape  planting  or  land  specula- 
tion. In  the  meantime,  the  exorbitant  prices  almost  did  away  with 
the  large  domestic  bakery  demand  for  raisins ;  thousands  of  consumers 
turned  to  cheaper  food ;  exports  dropped  greatly,  and  imports,  which 
undersold  the  unjustifiably  high  prices  for  which  many  growers  were 
holding,  grew  from  8,000  tons  in  1919  to  23,000  in  1920;  domestic 
sales  decreased  so  greatly  that  one-third  to  one-half  of  the  crops  of 
1921-1924  remained  unsold  as  a  carryover  on  June  first  to  break  the 
following  season's  market. 

The  so-called  "15-cent"  raisin  prices  of  1921  fell  to  about  3  cents 
and  prices  have  remained  unprofitably  low  much  of  the  time  since. 
Such  a  reduction  was  necessary  in  order  to  dispose  of  40  per  cent  more 
California  raisins  than  have  ever  been  sold  in  any  previous  four-year 
period  in  the  history  of  the  state 's  industry.  The  net  result  has  been 
that  the  year  1926  is  the  fifth  in  succession  in  which  California  raisins 
have  been  considerably  lower  in  purchasing  power  than  they  were 
before  the  war.  The  unreasonably  high  prices  for  which  California 
raisins  were  held  in  1919,  1920,  and  1921,  largely  accounts  for  the 
stimulation  of  world  production  which  has  resulted  in  the  serious 
depression  which  raisin  growers  the  world  over  have  been  passing 
through  since  1922.  The  three-year  inflation  of  raisin  prices  from 
1919  to  1921  cost  raisin  growers  literally  millions  of  dollars.58 


See  Sun-Maid  Business,  Dec.  15,  1924,  p.  17. 


US.  Consumption  t-  fm ports  of  Pa/sins  *•  Currants, 
California  Pa/sin  Product/on,  Exports  *•  farm 
Purchasing  Power,  I909~/9Z5. 


zoo 


\ioo 


so 


US.  Consumption 

(Ca/encfar-    Yeors)         ^ 


i 


1 


Imports 

(Calendar  Years) 


liPil 


I 


i 


I909   /O      //      /Z      /3     Z4-      /5     /<&      IT     /8     S9     ZO    Zf     ZZ    Z.3     Z4-     Z5    ZG 


150 


uoo 

1 


/ 


Durchasing  PowQr 

(Crop   Years) 


A 


.J 


\ 


1909  ro    II 

r~T~ 


250 


I 

°ISO 

i 

yoo 


50 


IZ      /3      14-      /&     f<5      /7     18      19    ZO     Z/     ZZ    Z3   Z4-     Z5~ 

"i — r 


Production 
(Crop  Years) 


Ex 'ports 

(Crop  Years) 


■  111 


1 


Carry  over- June  /s+-^ 

/9ZZ  -(925 


i 


i 


I 


1 


1909  !0   U   IZ    13   f&    15  /<5    17  18   19   ZO  Zl   ZZ  Z3  Z4    Z5 


ZOO 


150 


100 


50 


150 


-100 


-  50 


250 


200 


150 


-  100 


50 


Fig.  29.     (For  explanation  see  bottom  of  p.  105.) 


Bul.  429] 


ECONOMIC   STATUS   OF   THE   GRAPE   INDUSTRY 


105 


TABLE  21 
Farm  Price  and  Purchasing  Power  of  California  Kaisins,  by  Varieties, 

1909-1926 


Price 

All- 
com- 
modity 
whole- 
sale 
price 
index 

Purchasing  power 

Crop  year 

Muscat 

Thomp- 
son 

Sultana 

Average 

Average 

Per  cent 
of 

Per 
ton 

Dollars 

Per 

ton 
Dollars 

Per 

ton 

Dollars 

Per 

ton 
Dollars 

Per 

pound 
Dollars 

Percent 

of 
1910-14 
average 

Per 

ton 

Dollars 

Per 
pound 
Dollars 

1910-14 
average 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

Average 

1910-14 

65  48 

32.50 

55.00 

75.00 

61.84 

69.30 

66.26 

72.72 

84.18 

97.04 

105.40 

207.68 

223.05 

145.95 

53.09 

50.16 

60.50 

81.16 

42.50 

60.00 

107.50 

67.50 

78.28 

92.50 

99.67 

131.51 

137.73 

137.89 

239.97 

295.45 

168.08 

72.45 

48.78 

61.93 

67  09 

30.00 
50.00 
87.50 
55.00 
65.66 
77.28 
88.81 
118.10 
130.89 
134.54 
238.65 
242.65 
162.20 
66.26 
46.90 
45.02 

68.26 

33.69 

55.25 

80.81 

62.17 

70.23 

72.83 

76.91 

95.47 

109.97 

116.99 

222.22 

252.21 

157.79 

63.64 

49.08 

60.32 

75.00 

75.00 

.0341 

.0168 
.0276 
.0404 
.0308 
.0351 
.0364 
.0385 
.0477 
.0550 
.0589 
.1111 
.1261 
.0785 
.0318 
.0245 
.0302 
.0375 
.0375 

100 

49 

81 

118 

90 

103 

106 

113 

139 

161 

171 

325 

369 

230 

93 

72 

88 

110 

110 

100 

103 
97 
99 
102 
101 
101 
120 
171 
193 
206 
236 
164 
148 
158 
153 
161 
157 
154 

68  20 

32.80 
57.00 
81.60 
60.40 
69.60 
72.00 
64.20 
55.80 
57.00 
56.80 
94.20 
154.00 
107.00 
40.30 
32.10 
37.40 
47.80 
48.80 

.0341 

.0164 
.0285 
.0408 
.0302 
.0348 
.0360 
.0321 
.0279 
.0285 
.0284 
.0471 
.0770 
.0530 
.0201 
.0161 
.0187 
.0239 
.0244 

100 

1909 

48 

1910 

84 

1911 

119 

1912 

88 

1913 

102 

1914 

105 

1915 

94 

1916 

82 

1917 

83 

1918 

83 

1919 

138 

1920 

225 

1921 

155 

1922 

59 

1923 

47 

1924 

55 

1925 

70 

1926 

72 

1927 

Sources  of  data: 

Col.  1.     The  dates  refer  to  the  years  in  which  the  crops  for  which  prices  are  given  were  harvested. 

Cols.  2-6.  True  or  weighted  average  prices  paid  to  growers  for  raisins  in  the  sweat-box,  not  including 
returns  on  bleached  raisins  and  distillery  or  other  converted  stock.  Years  1909-1912,  from  Sun-Maid 
Herald,  Sept.,  1916,  p.  2,  and  Calif.  Fruit  News,  July  29,  1916,  p.  1.  The  1912  price  includes,  also,  the 
returns  to  growers  on  approximately  one-fourth  of  the  1912  crop  sold  by  the  Sun-Maid  Raisin  Growers 
in  1913  (see  Sun-Maid  Herald,  Nov.,  1915,  p.  5,  and  Sun-Maid  Raisin  Growers,  Cooperative  Marketing 
and  the  Raisin  Industry,  p.  5,  mimeographed  circular,  1922).  Years  1913-1924  are  Sun-Maid's  returns 
to  its  members.  Years  1913-1921  from  Associated  Grower,  Jan.,  1923,  p.  16.  Years  1922-1924  from 
unpublished  data  furnished  by  Sun-Maid  Raisin  Growers  of  California.  Years  1925  and  1926  preliminary 
estimates  by  the  authors. 

Cols.  5,  6.  Weighted  average  of  prices  in  cols.  2-4.  Weights  used  for  the  years  1913-1925  are  the 
quantities  of  each  of  the  three  varieties  given  in  table  20,  page  101.  The  1913  weights  are  used  for  the 
years  1909-1912. 

Col.  7.  Prices  in  cols.  5  and  6  expressed  as  relatives  or  percentages  of  the  average  price  for  the  five 
crop-years  1910-1914  used  as  100  per  cent. 

Col.  8.  U.  S.  Bureau  of  Labor  Statistics  monthly  all-commodity  wholesale  price  index  for  the 
United  States  (for  404  commodities  in  recent  years)  converted  to  a  crop-year  basis  (Oct. -Sept.)  and 
expressed  as  a  relative  or  percentage  of  the  five-year  average,  Oct.,  1910  to  Sept.,  1915,  inclusive,  as  100. 
Years  1909-1923  from  Warren,  G.  F.,  and  F.  A.  Pearson,  The  Agricultural  Situation,  p.  66.  N.  Y.,  Wiley 
&  Sons,  1924.     Years  1924-1926  from  U.  S.  Bur.  of  Agr.  Econ.,  Agricultural  Situation  112:8.     Feb.  1,  1927. 

Cols.  9,  10.  Computed  by  dividing  each  item  in  cols.  4  and  5  by  the  corresponding  item  in  col.  8. 
See  discussion  of  meaning  and  significance  of  purchasing  power  on  page  87. 

Col.  11.  Purchasing  power  in  cols.  9  and  10  expressed  as  relatives  or  percentages  of  their  respective 
averages  for  the  five  crop-years  1910-1914,  as  100. 

Fig.  29. — Unjustifiably  high  prices  for  California  raisins  from  1919  through 
1921  stimulated  imports  and  plantings,  reduced  exports,  and  temporarily  decreased 
the  consumption  of  California  raisins,  resulting  in  several  years  of  unprofitable 
prices,  and  in  June  carryovers  amounting  to  from  one-third  to  one-half  of  the 
crops  of  1921-1924.     (Data  from  tables  21  and  27,  pp.  105  and  124.) 


106 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


Inverse  Relationship  Between  Raisin  Supply  and  Price. — The  pic- 
ture presented  in  figure  30  illustrates  the  fact  that  normally  raisin 
prices  are  low  when  production  is  unusually  heavy,  and  are  high  when 
production  is  abnormally  light.  It  also  shows,  however,  that  these 
results  do  not  always  follow.  Low  raisin  prices  from  1922  through 
1925  were  not  caused  alone  by  heavy  production,  but  also  by  large 
carryovers  which  should  have  been  avoided  by  setting  the  price  right, 
i.e.,  low  enough  to  move  each  crop  by  the  time  the  next  one  was  ready 
to  market.    The  history  of  raisin  prices  in  the  last  ten  years  illustrates 


Production  -t  Purchasing  Po\*/er  of  Caiifornia  Poisins,    IS09  ~  J925. 

(in    Standard   Deviations    From    Lines    o-f    Trend ) 

+  3 

+  z 

+  / 

0 

-  1 

-  z 

-  3 

-  4 
19 

+  3 

+  Z 

-hi 

O 

-  1 

-z 

-3 

-4 
5 

i 

i 

\ 

Pur 

-choz 

ing 

°ou/e 

, — — 

\ 

V       i 

/ 

\l 

\* 

*-»/ 

4 
t 

\   1 
\  1 
\J 

f 

/> 

*\ 

•*< 

.— 

»»(V 

A 

>++^ 

**2* 

Pr 

oduc 

-/■/'on 

^ 

*^n 

09     /O        II         JZ        13        14-        15        16        17        18        19       ZO       Zf       ZZ       Z3      Z4-       Z 

Fig.  30. — Raisin  prices  tend  to  be  low  when  production  is  large  and  vice  versa, 
except  when  other  important  influences  such  as  heavy  carryovers  upset  the  market. 
(Calculated  from  data  in  tables  21  and  27,  pp.  105  and  124,  by  method  described 
in  Mill,  F.  C.    Statistical  method:  154-158.     Holt  and  Co.,  New  York.     1924.) 

in  a  striking  way  the  fact  that  violent  price  changes  in  one  direction 
are  very  likely  to  result  in  violent  swings  in  the  other  direction. 
Going  into  an  industry  because  prices  are  very  high  is  more  than 
likely  to  bring  disappointment,  particularly  in  the  fruit  industry. 

World  Conditions  Determine  California's  Raisin  Market. — The 
market  for  raisins,  unlike  that  for  many  other  fruits,  is  world-wide. 
California's  raisins  are,  therefore,  sold  at  a  price  largely  determined 
by  world  conditions  of  supply  and  demand.  Although  California  is 
the  only  raisin-producing  state  in  the  Union,  and  by  far  a  larger 


BUL.  429]  ECONOMIC  STATUS  OP  THE  GRAPE  INDUSTRY  107 

producer  than  any  separate  country,  her  output  in  recent  years  has 
probably  not  been  over  40  per  cent  of  the  world  output  of  raisins  and 
currants.  These  conditions  make  it  necessary  for  our  raisin-grape 
grower  to  consider  carefully  the  world-wide  status  of  the  raisin  indus- 
try in  arriving  at  reasonable  conclusions  in  regard  to  expanding  or 
contracting  production  and  in  determining  the  amount  of  effort  which 
should  be  devoted  to  extending  both  domestic  and  foreign  markets. 

Status  and  Outlook  of  the  World  Raisin  Market  Is  Unfavorable. — 
The  very  rough  estimates  of  world  production  of  raisins  which  are 
available  indicate  that  the  average  total  world  output  of  raisins  and 
currants  in  recent  years  has  been  about  500,000  tons.59  Compared 
with  the  approximate  average  pre-war  output,  world  production  has 
increased  about  25  per  cent.  Data  regarding  the  world  situation  of, 
and  outlook  for,  the  raisin  industry  are  rather  meagre  and  of  doubtful 
accuracy.  However,  an  analysis  based  upon  these  data  appears  to 
warrant  the  conclusion  that  a  normal  world  crop  of  raisin  grapes  in 
the  next  few  years  is  not  likely  to  be  smaller  than  the  average  produc- 
tion of  recent  years  and  may  be  even  greater.  The  British  Imperial 
Economic  Committee  apparently  holds  a  similar  belief  when  it  states 
that  "the  surplus  output  from  California  threatens  to  keep  prices 
depressed  for  some  time  to  come.  Therefore  those  producers,  whether 
within  or  without  the  Empire,  who  produce  fruit  of  substantially  the 
same  quality  as  California  cannot  reasonably  hope  for  satisfactory 
returns  during  the  next  few  years. '  '60 

Higher  Prices  Chiefly  Dependent  on  Reduced  Production. — It  is 
difficult  to  concur  with  the  British  Committee  in  its  apparent  implica- 
tion that  California  alone  is  responsible  for  the  world  surplus  of 
raisins  which  is  depressing  prices,  since  a  considerable  expansion  of 
the  industry  has  taken  place  outside  of  California.  It  would  seem, 
however,  that  its  emphasis  on  increased  production  as  the  chief  cause 
of  low  raisin  prices  is  fundamentally  sound,  and  that  a  reduction  of 
the  world 's  output  of  raisins  and  currants  is  necessary  if  substantially 
higher  prices  are  to  be  expected.  Since  California  is  producing  about 
40  per  cent  of  the  world  output,  if  such  a  decrease  is  necessary,  a 
part  of  it  should  probably  take  place  in  California. 


59  Eeliable  statistics  on  raisin  and  currant  production  are  unavailable  in  most 
foreign  producing  countries.  The  estimates  of  world  production  by  countries 
used  here  are  based  on  data  supplied  by  the  United  States  Bureau  of  Foreign  and 
Domestic  Commerce  and  the  United  States  Bureau  of  Agricultural  Economics. 
See  also  Sun-Maid  Business,  Oct.  15,  1924,  p.  9. 

so  Great  Britain,  Imperial  Economic  Committee.  Beport  on  the  marketing  and 
preparing  or  market  of  foodstuffs  produced  in  the  overseas  parts  of  the  Empire, 
Third  Beport— Fruit :  pp.  171-172.     1926. 


108  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

Rapid  Expansion  of  Australian  Raisin  Production. — The  question 
of  reduction  in  acreage  and  production  in  California  is  further  sug- 
gested by  the  fact  that  Australia  is  trying  to  appropriate  California's 
British  raisin  business.  Since  the  war,  Australia's  production  of 
raisins  and  currants  has  increased  very  rapidly  and  is  now  three 
times  its  pre-war  output.  Her  average  production  of  raisins  in  recent 
years  is  about  40,000  tons,  which  is  nearly  large  enough  to  replace  all 
of  California's  exports  to  Canada  and  the  British  Isles.  Likewise  a 
further  "considerable  increase  in  production  ....  may  be  expected 
from  the  vines  already  planted."01  In  addition,  great  potential  in- 
creases in  production  on  newly  developed  irrigation  projects  are 
possible  in  both  Australia  and  South  Africa,  under  adequate  financial 
stimulus. 

Canadian  and  English  Preferential  Tariffs  Favor  Australia. — The 
menace  of  Australia's  rapidly  increasing  output  to  California's  raisin 
growers  is  not  fully  driven  home  until  it  is  understood  that  Australia 
has  recently  consummated  commercial  treaties  with  both  Canada  and 
England,  whereby  Australian  raisins  may  be  imported  into  these 
countries  with  no  import  duty  whatever,  while  importations  of  Cali- 
farnia  raisins  into  Canada  are  taxed  3  cents  a  pound  and  into  England 
1.7  cents.62  The  extent  to  which  Australia  has  succeeded  to  date  in 
capturing  British  markets  is  shown  by  the  fact  that  her  exports  of 
raisins  and  currants  into  the  United  Kingdom  almost  doubled  from 
1923  to  1925,  increasing  from  14,600  tons  to  over  23,000.63  In  1924 
and  1925  she  supplied  almost  one-third  of  the  total  raisin  imports 
into  the  British  Isles,  whereas  before  the  war  she  contributed  less 
than  1  per  cent.64  In  view  of  the  fact  that,  of  the  one-fourth  of  Cali- 
fornia's output  which  it  has  been  necessary  to  export  in  the  past  four 
years,  the  British  have  taken  over  70  per  cent,  any  substantial  expan- 
sion of  Australian  sales  in  England  may  be  of  considerable  significance 
to  Californians. 

Keener  Competition  from  Other  Foreign  Countries. — Increasingly 
keen  competition  with  foreign  raisin  and  currant  producers  is  being 
felt  not  only  from  Australia,  but  also  from  nearly  every  one  of  five 
other  important  competitors — Greece,  Persia,  Smyrna,  Spain,  and 
South  Africa.     One  or  two  of  these  countries  have  increased  their 


si  Op.  tit.,  p.  170. 

62  U.  S.  Dept.  Agr.     Foreign  Crops  and  Markets  11:  939.     Sept.  21,  1925. 
03  U.  S.  Bur.  Agr.  Econ.     Foreign  News  on  Fruit  F.  S.  F.-12   (mimeo.)     Dec. 
17,  1925. 

C4  Great  Britain,  Imperial  Economic  Committee.  Report  on  the  marketing  and 
preparing  for  market  of  foodstuffs  produced  in  the  overseas  parts  of  the  Empire, 
Third  Report— Fruit,     p.  169.     1926. 


BUL.  429]        ECONOMIC  STATUS  OF  THE  GRAPE  INDUSTRY         109 

raisin  and  currant  output  slightly  in  recent  years,  although  the 
trebling  of  production  in  California  and  Australia  has  largely  been 
responsible  for  the  25  per  cent  post-war  increase  in  world  production. 
Each  of  these  countries,  however,  feels  keenly  the  necessity  for  greater 
sales  effort  to  maintain  its  share  of  the  world's  trade.  Profiting  by 
the  example  of  Sun-Maid's  very  effective  sales  campaigns  in  recent 
years,  nearly  every  one  of  them  has  undertaken,  or  is  preparing  to 
launch,  organized  effort  to  improve  the  quality  of  its  product  and  to 
increase  the  effectiveness  of  distribution.65 

Increasing  Exports  and  Decreasing  Imports. — In  spite  of  a  greatly 
increased  consumption  of  raisins  in  the  United  States  during  the  last 
four  years,  importations  of  foreign  raisins  and  currants  have  declined 
markedly  until  the  annual  average  has  been  but  slightly  over  12,000 
tons — not  quite  70  per  cent  of  pre-war  imports.  (See  fig.  29  and 
table  27,  p.  104.)  California  raisin  growers,  on  the  other  hand, 
have  multiplied  their  pre-war  exports  by  almost  five,  in  addition  to 
supplying  the  greatly  increased  home  consumption.  During  this  time 
an  average  of  over  54,000  tons  of  California  raisins  have  moved  each 
year  to  foreign  markets.  Practically  one-fourth  of  our  total  produc- 
tion is  now  exported,  whereas  only  15  per  cent  of  a  much  smaller 
output  went  abroad  before  the  war.     (See  fig.  29  and  table  27,  p.  104.) 

Increasing  Difficulty  of  Expanding  Foreign  Markets. — The  notable 
increase  in  California's  raisin  exports  in  the  last  five  years  should  not 
be  looked  upon  by  producers  as  warranting  expansion  of  production 
in  the  belief  that  further  extension  of  foreign  markets  on  any  con- 
siderable scale  is  likely  to  be  brought  about  profitably.  Sales  efforts 
which  have  lead  to  an  effective  expansion  of  foreign  demand  for 
California  raisins,66  are  meeting  constantly  keener  competition  and 
resistance  abroad,  for  reasons  which  have  already  been  mentioned. 
Such  opposition  is  likely  to  mean  that  continued  endeavor  and  expense 
will  be  necessary  merely  to  maintain  our  present  foreign  markets,  and 
that  proportionately  greater  effort  will  be  required  if  a  stronger 
foothold  is  to  be  had  in  many  of  the  best  European  markets. 


65  Op.  cit.  p.  163-187,  and  various  numbers  in  recent  years  of  Foreign  Crops 
and  Markets,  a  mimeographed  weekly  publication  of  the  Bureau  of  Agricultural 
Economics,  U.  S.  Department  of  Agriculture,  and  Foodstuffs  'Bound  the  World: 
Dried  and  Canned  Fruits,  a  mimeographed  weekly  publication  of  the  Bureau  of 
Foreign  and  Domestic  Commerce,  U.  S.  Department  of  Commerce. 

66  See  Sun-Maid  Business,  April  15,  1926 :  1,  4,  12 ;  Aug.  15,  1926 :  1,  12  and 
Sunland  Sales  Cooperative  Association  Yearbook,  1926:  6-7,  13,  for  outstanding 
accomplishments  in  expanding  foreign  markets  for  Sun-Maid  raisins. 


110  UNIVERSITY   OF    CALIFORNIA — EXPERIMENT    STATION 


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

Preparation  of  the  bulletin  has  been  greatly  facilitated  by  the 
generous  assistance  of  many  individuals  and  organizations.  Included 
among  those  who  have  given  liberally  of  their  time  and  data  are  the 
Divisions  of  Crop  Estimates,  of  Fruits  and  Vegetables,  and  of  Statis- 
tical and  Historical  Research,  of  the  Bureau  of  Agricultural  Econom- 
ics of  the  United  States  Department  of  Agriculture;  the  Bureau  of 
the  Census,  and  the  Bureau  of  Foreign  and  Domestic  Commerce,  of 
the  United  States  Department  of  Commerce ;  the  Interstate  Commerce 
Commission;  the  California  Cooperative  Crop  Reporting  Service; 
many  of  the  county  horticultural  commissioners ;  and  R.  L.  Nougaret, 
formerly  Viticulturist  of  the  California  State  Department  of  Agri- 
culture; the  Southern  Pacific,  and  the  Atchison,  Topeka  and  Santa 
Fe  railroads;  the  Pacific  Fruit  Express,  the  Santa  Fe  Refrigerator 
Dispatch,  and  the  American  Railway  Express  companies ;  the  Califor- 
nia Wine  Association;  the  Stewart  Fruit  Company,  the  California 
Fruit  Exchange,  the  California  Fruit  Distributors,  the  Sun-Maid 
Raisin  Growers  of  California,  the  California  Growers'  and  Shippers' 
Protective  League,  the  Canners'  League  of  California,  Libby,  McNeil 
and  Libby,  the  California  Packing  Corporation,  the  Agricultural 
Department  of  the  Los  Angeles  Chamber  of  Commerce,  and  the 
American  Bottlers  of  Carbonated  Beverages ;  editors  of  the  California 
Fruit  News,  the  California  Grape  Grower,  The  Grape  Belt,  The 
Beverage  Journal,  and  the  Pacific  Bottler ;  and  Mr.  A.  B.  Humphrey, 
Mrs.  H.  W.  Bartell,  Mr.  Eugene  G.  Cutter,  and  Mr.  Geo.  E.  Day. 

Among  the  members  of  the  University  Staff,  the  authors  acknowl- 
edge helpful  suggestions  from  Professors  F.  T.  Bioletti,  W.  V.  Cruess, 
and  from  Dr.  H.  R.  Wellman,  Mr.  L.  W.  Fluharty,  Mr.  H.  R.  Keller, 
and  Mr.  J.  H.  Irish.  Within  the  Division  of  Agricultural  Economics, 
valuable  suggestions  were  received  from  Dr.  H.  E.  Erdman  and  Dr. 
Emil  Rauchenstein.  Assistance  in  statistical  computations  was  ren- 
dered by  Miss  Ruth  McChesney,  Statistical  Assistant;  Miss  Gladys 
E.  Platts,  Statistical  Clerk;  and  Mr.  Ansel  P.  Darr,  formerly  student 
assistant.    The  figures  were  drafted  by  Mrs.  Frances  E.  Sorrell. 


Bul.  429] 


ECONOMIC   STATUS   OF   THE   GRAPE   INDUSTRY 


111 


APPENDIX    OF    TABLES 


TABLE  22 
Estimated  California  Wine  Grape  Production,  by  Uses,  1899-1918 


Crop  utilization 

Production  equivalent  of  fresh  fruit 

Vintage 
year 

Dry 
wine 

Sweet 
wine 

Brandy 

Fresh 
ship- 
ments 

Dry 
wine 

Sweet 
wine 

Brandy 

Fresh 
ship- 
ments 

Total 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

Gals. 

Gals. 

Proof  gals. 

Cars 

Tons 

Tons 

Tons 

Tons 

Tons 

1899 

15,000,000 
13,000,000 
33,600,000 
18,500,000 
16,000,000 
18,000,000 
29,000,000 
26,800,000 
27,700,000 
33,900,000 
27,400,000 
26,000,000 
25,000,000 
22,000,000 
25,000,000 
26,300,000 
21,571,000 
23,000,000 
20,020,000 
25,000,000 

7,211,280 
7,872,756 
7,977,878 
13,762,863 
11,628,362 
11,263,251 
9,824,847 
13,282,887 
14,057,111 
12,235,307 
15,408,846 
15,933,511 
19,997,490 
15,257,269 
14,857,271 
14,377,034 
11,914,575 
17,599,916 
15,001,466 
6,324,044 

3,061,363 
3,257,631 
3,576,879 
5,771,400 
4,543,413 
4,653", 141 
3,889,267 
5,462,052 
6,433,411 
5,971,171 
7,170,212 
7,316,488 
8,721,693 
7,472,562 
6,765,119 
7,906,380 
3,779,532 
7,871,759 
5,295,952 
1,765,906 

100,000 
86,667 
224,000 
123,333 
106,667 
120,000 
193,333 
178,667 
184,667 
226,000 
182,667 
173,333 
166,667 
146,667 
166,667 
175,333 
143,807 
153,333 
133,467 
166,667 

48,075 

52,485 

53,186 

91,752 

77,522 

75,088 

65,499 

88,553 

93,714 

81,569 

102,726 

106,223 

133,317 

101,715 

99,048 

95,847 

79,431 

117,333 

100,010 

42,160 

87,468 
93,075 
102,197 
164,897 
129,812 
132,947 
111,122 
156,059 
183,812 
170,605 
204,863 
209,043 
249,191 
213,502 
193,289 
225,897 
107,987 
224,907 
151,313 
50,454 

235,543 

1900 

232,227 

1901 

379,383 

1902  

379,982 

1903  .... 

314,231 

1904  . 

328,035 

1905 

369,954 

1906 

423,279 

1907 

462,193 

1908  

478,174 

1909  

490,256 

1910 

488,599 

1911 

549,175 

1912  

461,884 

1913 

459,004 

1914  

497,077 

1915 

1916 

1917 

1918 

750 

835 

4,000 

6,000 

10,500 
11,690 
56,000 
84,000 

341,725 
507,263 
440,790 
343,281 

Sources  of  data: 

Col.  1.  All  data,  except  where  noted,  are  for  the  12  months  ending  June  30  of  the  year  following 
that  indicated  in  col.  1. 

Col.  2.  Years  1899-1912  and  1914  compiled  from  Calif.  State  Brd.  Agr.  Statistical  Reports  for  the 
years  1912-1915.  Years  1913,  1915,  and  1916  compiled  from  State  Brd.  Viticultural  Commissioners,  Buls. 
1-10,  1914-1918.  Years  1917-1918  from  Nougaret,  R.  L.,  Status  of  California  grape  industry,  June  30, 
1922.     Calif.  Dept.  Agr.,  Spec.  Pub.  28:15.     1922. 

Col.  3.  Includes  only  the  amount  of  dry  wine  used  before  fortification.  Years  1900-1918  compiled 
from  U.  S.  Commissioner  of  Internal  Revenue,  Annual  Reports  1900-1918.  Year  1915  also  includes  an 
estimate  of  6  million  gallons  of  sweet  wine  made  by  a  process  not  requiring  fortification;  data  from  State 
Board  of  Vit.  Comms.  Bul.  6:9,  April  5,  1916. 

Col.  4.  Total  brandy  produced  in  California.  All  data  compiled  from  U.  S.  Comm.  of  Int.  Revenue 
Annual  Reports  1900-1918. 

Col.  5.  Total  interstate  shipments  of  wine  grapes  by  calendar  years  compiled  from  the  following 
sources:  Years  1915-1916  from  State  Brd.  Vit.  Comms.  Bul.  6:8,  April  5,  1916,  and  Bul.  8:1,  Feb.  15, 
1917.  Years  1917-1918  from  Nougaret,  R.  L.,  Status  of  California  grape  industry,  June  30,  1922,  p.  16. 
1922. 

Col.  6.     Data  in  col.  2  divided  by  150. 

Col.  7.    Data  in  col.  3  divided  by  150. 

Col.  8.     Data  in  col.  4  divided  by  35. 

Col.  9.    Total  of  cols.  6,  7,  and  8. 

The  tonnage  of  wine  grapes  unharvested  and  those  dried  and  converted  into  unfermented  juice 
are  not  included  in  this  estimate  because  of  the  lack  of  continuous  series  of  satisfactory  estimates.  These 
estimates  include  a  varying  and,  at  times,  considerable  tonnage  of  lower  grade  raisin  and  table  grapes 
used  in  the  manufacture  of  wine  and  brandy. 


112 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA — EXPERIMENT    STATION 


ent  of 
city's 
aads 
ied  by 
states 

^irtt©-^<Meoooot^.-«*<iot-<r>t^05CMeoc»io<Mj>iowoo©-H 

_H 

l-l    iH    i-l    *— 1    n    H                               CNCCiHCO-HCMi-lC®             CO    •«*    C*    *~l             M    U5    M 

O    _-=i— '    0) 

Per 

each 

un 

supp 

thes 

S3 

'3 
u 
o 

p  fi  «  m 

NtJINrtHHMNSOilNOlOlOHNOlOSOINH^NlO 

Q    4)    0)    O 

o3 

o 

t-e»»«a»oi-iiflo^Ht^oot^t>^HCNOi-irtioooo^»ooc<i^HO 

O 

UJ    US                               C»                                                 *H 

(-.„<"    03 

3 

«®-3  ° 

J3 

Ph    »3 

% 

^    03 

c3 

0)   o 
0-5 

O«000O00O>«O>O^O2O00C00aOO00C»Tf<U»OCNI0CIMa> 

m 

OS 

©ea©o^^©coco^e<i©ojTj<oc^coo>ocbcO'-<0'**<<r<ic> 

ootiH               •*               _  _  ^  eo 

03 

Li     A 

,H 

O 

S  3 
Cm 

£ 

03 

T3 

H8)^NNh*NNNONO>HN«NmilOOHOHraOOHeO 
O«NU»C^l(Me»CC'-H-^00OOO5OC000T-H00lCTf<0»t~-'-l05lC«0 

03   ra 

.2  03 

GO 

©    "»    t>    CO    i-H    ©_            (M    Oi    05    Oi    »H     i-H    CO             rt     <M    CD             •*    IO                      (N    »H 

(3  « 

i>   <o                      o»                                  <vf 

P 

««H                             >> 

■  cent  o 
h  city's 
nloads 
plied  b 
lifornia 

uia<«eoot»^MMeioM'j<MH»NHie«iMioiosoa) 
«ooocooo(OcoaiaoiN!oco<o«Ni»noi!Oiofoooiomte 

- 

ll*%s 

o     .^S 

-^_  c  a 

OHH(D«OOHH*MO^tOeMOO«OOHO(OMOHeCN 

03 
'S 

on*!  8 

CO 

«>«^<e-<©oio^H-tfccio<Ne-©cNO^©©o^Hp«oo»-ioo 

U 

o 
O 

Pen 

Cali 

ship 

o      * 

s 

•«    03 

ooo^H(oie-*coH<j<oeOMeTiiT|iMifltoiaflOO<Bio*co 

o 

Per  cen 

total 

Califor 

unloa< 

*rs 

OOOmaiOOHiflNN^^OWONciiOciHMHdHOO 

03 

T3 

HaiOOOOOMN^NOlHiawMlO^NHOOlWOlOeOMN 

«mo»NHo«ON!Bt"ioooioeqNHHrtt»oeHio* 

03   « 

.2   03 

■* 

".  N.  o  f;  «  «  »  »  us  q  (D  «  n  ^_  h  q  h  w  h  *  w  ^  n  e  h  h 

P 

rt    t-"  ^"  n           ,-T           w"  n    W    H    O            r-4           i-*           to"                  i-T 

>*    «0                               tN                      ^H                      ,-1 

^ 

O   03  -2 

CO 

o>Nioioo*dwdiflwt-6ficiHoooHMooHod 

o    o                         e*»                  <M                  lH                                       iH 

03 

ChP1! 

0> 

<*-! 

ta 

0  ,„ 

03 

a>  o 

ooo»^oot-eoc<5«oco(Mio-Ht^-«t<-*t~t^coc<iio©«oa>eO'* 

« 

CN) 

©    ^<    Cj»     OS    ©    ©»    i— 1    l«     Oi    00    »C    W    i— !MONO*OM*r- I    ©    i— I©© 

g 

o 

Oh 

m 

03 

03   f 

N«ONlONO«tOTtl!OH[»(NO>NO'<tl!eiX)Hartl»rtT)llfl 

o>irteNc^aiO»-*t^-*ocot->cioo-Hcocoo3cocovet^t^--HOO 

o  S 

OOt-OO^MN®lOr((OiO^"15NClHMHWOH'*N(SmN 

£   ° 

MM*'*                Tjt                M     ^     ■*     N     N                1-1                rH                t^                ^     M 

a 

o 

-03 

u 

IS 
a 

0) 

g 

c 

! 

•1 

PC 

a 
t 

e 

•> 

c 

I 

< 
£ 

e 

it 

1 

of. 

! 

a 

a 
c 

X 

P- 

h    b 

| 
± 
P- 

i 

'Si 
i* 

M    C 

1 

a 

1 

'c 

1 

c 

c 
c 

h 

g 

e 

X 

c 
C 
e 

'.! 
1 

•1 
J 

"3 
S 

l 
i 

e 

E 
C 

1 
a: 

"c 
C 
e 

a 

ii 

1  — 

s 

P- 

O 

lis                  fl                  S 

E 

c^ 

« 

■*' 

Bul.  429] 


ECONOMIC   STATUS   OF   THE   GRAPE   INDUSTRY 


113 


ent  of 
city's 
aads 
ied  by 
states 

©e*<Moop5e»»>-"<o»oes 

•>*ic«^»-»tf5coe>*co©©©i— i 

N    N              ^h     •>»<    CO     ^h     CM    t- 

c*   cm               *  ih 

Per  c 
each 

suppl 
these 

08 

1 
1 

£ 

O 

+J    C    CO    CO 

eot-©©r^©^Hio->*<*- 

©0©«©CO©*11CNIM©©0 

£    CD    CD    CD 

c3 

o 

o  «^_cj 

o 

c^tho^hoihoooc 

ddddoooodddd 

^.„>*-    CO 

3 

«4  0 

CO 

PL|    CO 

CJ 

O    ,„ 

e3 

1"S 

CU   o 

OiOOt^cooocMoir^T- 

O^Oi-HO^t-CO-"*©©© 

CO 

en 

^ieOO'-Hi-c»HOOOO 

ddo*H^HO©ooo©o 

o^i 

c3 

n  S 

8 

o 

^  3 
P4 

Pn 

T) 

eoMcO'-ioo^'H^HcMt- 

CMCOCMOiO»00»r-HlOi-lOCN 

°1 

cc 

^•iH               M    «    N    H     CO    IQ 

M    N             i-i            *-t 

CO     N             ^*     CM    CM 

"a  « 

P 

3ent  of 
city's 
Loads 
lied  by 
fornia 

OOOOOINNWCSHOflO 

COOOCtClliOilOONOOOOl 

»CBOOOlOtS«JNM91 

oc3iOie"t^o>o>>oa30003 

^ 

r-(     rH 

r-o  c  a;s 

"    ^           CO 

o     .5-2 

+^_  fl  c 

^MNONIONMOie 

HNMIflil<H«0^"C** 

CM 

OS 

c« 
'S 

1 
"oS 

O 

Per  cen 

total 

Cali  for 

shipme 

CD 

•Ni-iddo'oo'doa 

oooood^oooccd 

s 

*OIM»M»N^OOI 

HMI«("«5INrtHlOMNt8 

o 

llll 

U9 

eotHo^czJoodoo 

©  ©o©o©i>©©©»o© 

Ph 

PL,        O 

CO 

T3 

Oi-lcn»Ot^^lCMOCNllO 

OI[-rtWH(00>WN« 

iOCMOOtOOCOOOOOO>'*"5 

03  <*> 

*H010)NM»NNO!Dm 

.2  £ 

"*f 

eo  e-   ^h  io   -*  e>»         i-H         cc 

-Hr-ie^cM         eft          n  m  h   in 

«H 

pi"                       CM 

P 

o'S^ 

g   •  8 

tO^CMOCOOCMCO^Htfl 

eJiHo'o'dooo'o'a 

-HCMOOU»-^l»-H^(^HTt<-<tlr-lT*< 

oooooo^doocoo 

CO 

PwPlI 

CD 

-H> 

c« 

0  co 

CO 

11 

CD    o 

"JISlMCOifCOCNTtlCNt" 

HNTfOOCONNHlOCO^iC 

"3 

CM 

pj^io^Hodoooo 

o©o©o©«©d©o-*o 

a 

CD    3 

O 

Pm 

CO 

T3 

WMNlOiOOOtOH^N 
COOOCNiOOOOOi-ll>.« 

NWOlOWHlOOliOO^N 

11 

a  w 

ijli— lOC-0200C»Ji*-«*''-HCD»C 

i-H 

t-    O     i— I     CO     CM    CO     i— I    IN             en 

H    N    «    «             ©_            CMCCi-HCM 

»h" 

CO                         cm" 

P 

"to 

rfl 

•j 

8 

u 

■  1 

« 

Hi 

> 

1 

c 

-5 

IS 
a 

cci 

& 

O 
CD 

CO 

a 
o 

■I 

- 
d 

1 

t 
a 

< 

j 

e 

pq 

Washington, 
st  South  Cen 

Birmingham 

IE 

I 
1 

c 
c 

<7 

CO 

S 

CD 
CD     C 

1 

a 

p 

G 

CD 

M 
CC   T 

a 

c 

c 

c 
c 

X 

■2 

0 

h   a, 

X 

j 
i 

Ph 

o 

CO      CO 

'5    » 

G     CD 

t-   a 
^  <J 

C     co 
X    1-1 

O 

|w                   «                   £ 

s        £ 

5 

u: 

<c 

t» 

cc 

a 

114 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


ent  of 
city's 
aads 
ied  by 
states 

Lfl 

lO 

CO 

ws 

IO 

m 

o 

0] 

CO 

t» 

»* 

00 

CI 

CO 

CO 

CO 

CO 

«* 

2 

cj; 

«    IM 

- 

o 

•* 

oo 

o  --h-h  a> 

Per 

each 

un 

supp 

thes 

.5 

3 

**;  to 

o 

■P     H     B     Jl 

lOiH00'<tl-*t-OCN^t<O-HU»OC0lO00OI>''*00iHOO'0C0C0 

C  o>  a;  o> 

is 

o 

OlOe^CNOrHO^t^Ot^t-(NiCO>-HO-*OCNlC<SOO^H^HO 

O 

"■H 

u»  •*                     C*                                 t-i 

t*  .„  «*i    02 

3 

(PJ3  O 

03 

Ph  03 

01 

O  „ 

e3 

C  o3 

O»HUSt^00t-»-HCCI^0000U»00-«J<O«0>-Hr-<O»C'«J<C0T-c00OC0 

<n 

OS 

oo>usTt<oe^oc>J^^cc^P50^cooaJ^Hio<oooc<«e<io 

O     CO                               ^1                      i-H     i-H     i-H    CO             t-h 

13 

n  5 

th 

s 

O 

8  a 

03 

T3 

©Nioc>qcoo^©co^ooerjc»c»02roc>qc»co<6'#a5co'~-.oot~ 

03   <» 

N     Ol     IB     f     CI     51             N^iOH^lHrtiNO             N    W    O    91                       »I^^H 
O    CO    i-H    i-H             p»                      Tt<    CO    t*<    ©    >— I    CO             t-i             <M             i— I    H 

.2  03 

oo 

eo  ei*                    ih?                                th 

p 

Per  cent  of 
each  city's 

unloads 

supplied  by 

California 

u»u»t-t^»oiftOoor^cocoe*a>r^r^.-*t<i>-<or^i— i  t-i  oo   a>    o   c©   oo 

CI9l»IOl01»IO01Cnaj|»CINI»0001C»0S00M»0iO>31N00 

r>. 

"* 

o      gjg 

1 

-^_'S  fl 

«O^COOO«0»HOcC>0-H^'lt<Dt^.COCO^HCOe<ia:tOt^-^OCOCM 

CN 

5 

0>THC-<OOt0'-HC0CNt0c0ir»OCMO<NO00OOe^OO-HOO 

OS 

'3 

ID    1©                               CO                       <M                      i-H 

6 

Ph      O'g 

a 

oowt^cce^-^cNasooasNooo^co^HCftcoTfft-ascoioiocN 

o 

Per  cen 

total 

Califor 

unloa' 

US 

oooo"c3»oe>«^Hus^Hoo"*e«0'*ocoO'-'0»-H*ooo'»-too 
o    oo    t-i                us                co                es                                   t-i 

03 

TJ 

IO(i)TjOTfMO)NlOHH»- IOCOO"OTt<OCOOI^-t~-COTl»0» 

ooieNONt-ionnoiio^TONO^MOtOHNOicaiOTjH 

o3    "3 

la 

p 

-# 

cocou»i-HTjie^t^t^coioiotDTl<ocNt^         (Mi-ir^o>-»»*cNr^<MTM 

N     IS    ifl     iO             t-             N    tO    t»    f)    rt              <M             i-H             CO                      1-1 
lO    «                               CN                       iH                      tH 

«*-— 1 

O  03  ™ 

8  ^s 

CO 

OOOI8>T)lil50001'*C»0!D<ONOti5MHONHie<OTllOiJlN 

t-o»tocbo^ocoo<»coioocNO(^ooooT-ieqoo^Hoo 

o   us                      eo                cm                th 

"m  a 

03 
CD 

«*H 

"§ 

°    03 

03 

4»-d 

Ot-PS»COOt-T*<-H005COOOCOTi<CO^HOCOCDe-CT>"5«0<OCN 

^3 

C    (33 

a;  o 

CM 

OOOOaJOTH^iO^OO^CO^-T^OcoOCNIOi-lMOOT-iOO 
O     00     T-I                        lO                        CO                        N                                                      ^h 

a 

»1 

T-I 

o 

Pn 

T3 

ininONNMMNtOOOlCICSCOlNONINmiSTjcDOONIO 

03   <n 

O«rt00Tt<-Tt<tO«OOt^T}l«500T}<00C0i^t>'C000t^.THOO>OIMC0 

^•oocN-rii'or^oooaiaiCfiiococMoo         i/ii—ioOT-^iocooocot-i 

|8 

P 

rH 

irfofufu^"        oo"        cJ  t-  »*  e»  ea        el        »-I        co             e*T 

w   •#                     c*               i-i               t-i 

a 
.2 

■3 

J! 

i 

'a 

13 

a 

o3 
M 

Ofl 

o 
CD 

3 

c 

H 

I 

1 

b 

E 

w 

PC 

i 
e 

1 

■O  PC 

I 

> 

a 

|z 

03 

IS  x 
a  b 

11 

13  ± 

Ph  P- 

I 

1 

i 

'c 
i- 

p 

c 
"C 
a 
c 
Eh 

c 

b 
i 

X 

03 

o  d    - 

03     | 

II 

•   >> 
SMC 

3 

00 

§■-3 

i  ^ 

o 

pi       S               A                      * 

c 

c 

- 

c\ 

c^ 

* 

Btjl.  429] 


ECONOMIC   STATUS   OF   THE   GRAPE   INDUSTRY 


115 


cent  of 
.  city's 
loads 
lied  by 
e  states 

0> 

OM 

O 

Si 

-*  en 

eo 

OS 

em  co 

CM 

o 

b- 

e-j 

T1 

o 

o 

*^ 

»-l                      CM                               ^H                                        «>»     CM                      ic 

,  ja  a  a« 

'S 

u 

£i3H 

«-•    m 

o 

•+J    B    0]    CO 

0*»o»-<»-<t-»H^te^»-iooowe«i-i»H50eoei»oo 

£  oj  cd  cp 

03 

o 

t)    B  _u    CO 

o 

wie^o^rtooooocsoo^^HOrHdoooo' 

B.„<*n    CO 

3 

CD^h    O 

to 

Ph  m 

<D 

o  m 

ej 

■{3*9 

«H^o^iwioeor-u3e>j^'~io<©'«*<Me*<Mr^cooo 

SB 

OB 

o^ocqcNi^-ioooooooe^cNioc^'HOOOo 

o-5 

o3 

b  g 

S 
O 

5    B 

Ph            | 

u 

fe 

co 
c3  <o 

CSNO'fOO'dlMNlO^MMHSlnlOIOlBOOlOH 

oo    co          to  s  «          <m^h                            e-  i~-          to   n   w 

o  5 

co 

iH       T-l 

"c  ° 

P 

cent  of 
city's 
loads 
lied  by 
fornia 

i-hco©i— i«o»-(-^T-ia5oo«v-cooeT>«ocoooa3cooooo 

O>eooavi^o>aio5oocno5a50t-t^a30>->!tiai0500 

t~ 

^H                                                                                     rH                                                                   »-l    *H 

.  -B  cs  a^B 

ll  =  |(3 

o     M9 

-^-,    B    C 

[■•jiiNont'NwiNieHiNWTjnHHH^iooow 

c3 
'S 

O 

e^»n'oooooooooooooousooocoo 

O 
d 

o 

a 

PL,         U    oo 

o    .3  m 

lOO)MCO'*09N'*(NOONN-*(O^NMHiOh.lolo 

o 

B 

eOiHO^OOOOOOOOOOOOt-000>00 

h 

B  *a*3  C 

Ph        ° 

*d 

^HOJOffi^NfllOOSKilOitOIOeONlOOiOlINN 
ftOlNlOHWHHHMOrtNONMNWtDNOOlO 

11 

B    » 

-*< 

WOHCN^HINH^             h    N    Ol    N             CO             IN    M    OO    N 

rt    rt                                                                                                                       CO                             CM 

P 

o'S.S 

"S3  § 

i  •  a 

w 

e^iHoooooooooooooo«*ooocco 

co 

3 

o->,_-_d 
fJHp-g 

<« 

* 

co 

(0ONWlO00N,*N00NN'(<t"lONOH10NNl« 

"eS 

B   oj 

8.§ 

CN 

WNO^OOOOOOC5C>OOOOt-000"50 

a 

o5  3 

2 

Ph 

R 

2,077 
1,133 

129 
720 
284 
498 
124 
241 
133 
446 

97 
122 
227 
385 
299 

86 
3,888 

71 

289 

388 

2,882 

258 

11 

'- 

p 

§ 

b 

"3 

•a 

■> 
*3 

o 

a 

0) 

rifi 

fl 

>> 

c 

t- 

.e 

e 
c 

! 

5 
< 

E 

« 

j 
< 

a 
s- 

I 

c 

PC 

Washington, 
st  South  Cen 
Birmingham 

« 

1 

o 

*S    c 

--§* 

SI 
is 

0 

CO 

C 
nj 
0) 

5  e 

O 

Si 

a 
c 

05 

1 

1 

■i  J 
g| 

B      B 

b  a 

as     O 

r>2  i-} 

0 

|£          £          fc          s        £ 

p 

* 

1 

<£ 

r>^ 

oc 

a 

116 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


^     „          i>>  CO 

**;  co       ^>  cu 

cent 
i  cits 
load: 
lied 
e  sta 

w  ie  m  w   w 

M    — 

!«I^COift^lCOOcOeOOO(MCT)(MOCB<— I^HOSCO 

g 

r-t    iH    tH    »-i    <M 

tH 

CMCOC«-*-H<Mr-I^HCMCNiocO                      M    •*    ^1 

"3 

Per 

each 

un 

supp 

thes 

«*■•    rr> 

o 

0|    » 

-U     K     CO     CO 

C*    >*    00    o    oc 

«*    C 

MiOiOO«0)OiiOCOh»'*N«JNON<000 

g    4)    0)    J) 

03 

o 

o  mi  •*  •>*  c 

to  o 

oosoot^oJ^oo^ooJoui^oo^rto 

o 

t©    IA 

c* 

,H 

u  Sti  co 

3 

c;^  o 

co 

Ph  <d 

<V 

°  <c 

s 

1*3 

O   o   O  t^  ec 

t-    c 

WlONOHHIOOCONCOlBCON^OCOtO* 

CO 

os 

o  g  oo  co  - 

3C 

i— llO-*ICMCOcOi— lO(NOiOOOOC"OOcMeN'-l 

oa 

2  a 

tH 

s 

o 

5  3 

£ 

CO 

73 

N    (6    (0    N    - 

iA    ir: 

Nooiflifl^o^^HOXNcoaiMHcoccn 

03  co 

(O    CI    «    US    r- 

(O 

'-lOooiotococMt^cMi-icrsiC'— ccnoo         co<-c«-h 

£  ol 

00 

CO    tO    t0    lO     — 

to 

^HCO-HOt^cM^H             CN             CN             t^U»                      M    CI    h 

fl  » 

oo"  i> 

CO 

y- 1   >h   »-(  e>»                                  «-< 

P 

nt  of 
ity's 
ids 
d  by 
rnia 

US    *    t-    00    oc 
0O    00     CO     00     1  - 

oo  a 

oo    - 

lOoo-^ioto-'tiO'itii^cMoor-iooo^HOsas^Ht^ 

C3S03I^COt-»OOit~-OOOOt^t^T+lC»C35a3COiC»A 

a>  o  £  ^  o 

t~ 

"Jcas 

J8I-HS 

o     .3  3 

^_  c  c 

fll    U)    N    CD    « 

oo   o 

MN^OMlSCeMnHHCNONlflMOO^N 

CO 
CM 

OS 

2 
'3 

o 

o3 

O 

Per  cen 

total 

Califor 

shipme 

CO 

o  es   r-  co  c 
t-  to 

co  C 

ecr^iccoeooi-iocNOi^o^HNOOOOC) 

CM                      i-l 

o        03 

s 

+^     '3-§ 

Ort    rt    W« 

iH    CC 

NCNfflWCONfflCONNCeM^iHNrllNiaW 

o 

Per  cen 

total 

Califor 

unloai 

as 

O    00    ©    OS    c 

8  " 

^llONiioOOMOMOOOHw'oOHOci 
CO                        iH 

CO 

T3 

IS    M    CO     IN    C 
tf    *     H     N    Cf 

S  2 

comiotMoncMOcoooi^-'tir^irstooiococoaj 

N^iliONONOiOIXINCllCNnCOMNil 
rtT|in<CI:ISCO'-l<MT((                mHCD^MrHlSINrt 

.2  03 

p 

-* 

w   th   to   cm  a- 

\e»   cc 

lO     O     <*     f 

lO 

N     N     W     H     CO                r-l                ^H                •*•                          tH 

«*  ■<* 

c-» 

««^H 

O   03  -2 

cc 

0  N    00     CM    CC 

01  H    IO    CO    c 
10    IP 

OlOOlW^INN'ilHH^NOOtBiaNOfflM 

fi^weo^dHdNONdHNodHdd 

CM                        »H 

ZmB 

CO 

^p-S 

t*H 

d 

0  m 

CO 

43 -a 

o  t-  o>   as  a- 

e«  cc 

^Ht^»0cO0>O^<iCi'-<cMa>CO»O00t^C«3'*IC»U5 

^ 

C   03 

CM 

o   oo   o>   00  c 

m 

■»ti-*OOlOO^HCMOOOOOOCMCOCZ>O^HCOO 

CO                          M                                                          i-H 

s 

""2 

cu  3 

""* 

O 

PL, 

CO 

T3 

oo   oo    co    -    i- 

■*   a- 

IOCOOr^CO(M->*<Oa>COCMa>'-llOCOCOCMCMCM 

c8   « 

e*   co  oo   t-   c 

o\  00_  C*    I--    IT. 

CO    C 

cokCcooo>cocnooi^o<Mt^-r^c>«coooi^'^ico 

<MI^COOC^lOCMCMCO^^OO^HCOOCO>-lt—-^<CN 

3   g 

e^  cc 

"3  u 
P 

W    [•    IS    * 

orT 

CN    OO    ^1    W    H             ^H             rt             IO             rHC* 

US    ■* 

e>* 

G 

'to 

1 

1 

s 

a 

03 

bJO 
O 
0> 

3 

c 

4 

H 

I 

■5 

9  I 

PC 

a 

c 
c 

■> 
i 

p. 

CO 

•o  cc 

k 

c- 

e 

a 

Iz 

3 

a  tu 

\  * 

13  .t 

Ph  p- 

1  £ 

«    c 

1 

E 

1 

s 

"5 

c 

'5 

\- 

c 

c 

0 

c 

h 

c 

0 

to 

0  i  s 

sst  North  Ce: 

Kansas  City. 

I 

CO 

I- 

03     5 
v    o: 

o 

If  A 

g 

d                  ^ 

0 

0 

- 

cs 

<^ 

■* 

Bul.  429] 


ECONOMIC   STATUS   OF   THE   GRAPE   INDUSTRY 


117 


ent  of 
city's 
aads 
ied  by 
states 

^HU»COCMlO«OOOTf<OU»005CMt-»O^Hei»-^00-HOt^ 

,H 

e»»  c*         cm  •*  e*         cm-*         i-h               moo               io  h 

O     _«*■=<  ~*      QJ 

.  -^  a  a  to 

d 

"3 

H1!! 

«*- 

o 

o2„ 

S3 

*;  S  na  co 

«>»0'-^cco^-*"5e^>-i-<oo>a5oe-co'#ooo 

(J    4)    J)    J) 

O 

S|5| 

o 

COC^O^OtHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 

d 

*5o 

X> 

Oh  <n 

a 

„_ 

o 

"d" 

u  co 
0)   o 

m  m  h  o  n  1"  -■ i  n  a>  m  >h  r- ii-HtecDoe^-^t^oO'-H 

J^ 

OS 

iflieoo^rtiHoododdd^rHO^HOoooo 

o-=i 

d 

t-  fi 

a 

o 

HI    3 

& 

CO 

03  J0 

i©e>»oooocD©05cc>m«#oo-Hio*-i©'— i   o»   "5   »o   co  o  c© 
eot-         ioo«*          »ot^e^          ~h          m   m         «   co   ira 

^S 

00 

"*     M                rH     rH     TH                                                                                »1     ^H 

a  « 

!=> 

<*H                          >> 

| 

1     «»<(IOOlO<IN*OWOH»Mia0^aNO!OM 

1      [-fOlMOMJN!e«IOlOlCt    [-OOlCI^COOlOCS 

OJ    O    §.2,°         t-                                                                                                                                                                                            -1 

t,-5*3'Sa 

"S     .3-3 

-w__  c  fl 

U)NNOONieHMNt"H(N'*<O^NWO^lflMH 

CO 

d 
'8 

CD 

c»»-ioddddoodooddodifliooo'>#d 

"d 

o 

Ph    on 

°   -9- 

s 

s—  g^5 

laoOMNnOON^NaNNlOOOtONieOtOCCON 

o 

S5  o  g 

i» 

eo^-tdi-iododdoodooodt-ooddo 

£ 

^  *"~3  s 

Ph     o 

CO 

T3 

U)NI»MrtN»HMiHT(ISOOp<ONHWOONMlO 

HOHioMOioicoHNNo^^^otenin^Tiioo 
te  co  h   ic  h  n         .-h   .— i  ^i         h  n  «  n  h  ^         n  n  n 

03  co 

■»* 

i-T                                                                                                             c»                         cm" 

& 

<*-_ 

o  oj.2 

g  •  a 

CO 

wji-ioddodooooooooo^oodeo© 

CO 

5 

PhP   CO 

<** 

o3 

CO 

»0«eoii50N»)m(OHNiofliNoiieH<o<OHN 

Ej 

C   03 
cp  o 

CM 

eocid^di-ioooooodoootedooioo 

03 

c-5 

a 

fe§ 

o 

Ph 

£ 

CO 

T5 

rl^t9HNNNN»U)N»tt)«<BmOOOWW«rt 

lSt-O|rtMMOC0«*00H'*t.NOIBtOrtTJ(TjlO) 

03  £ 
£    03 

a  o 

-1 

OO^t^CMUi'-ieM^^t             H    N    *    M    rt    IB             M    W    N 
C*    »-T                                                                                                                                CO                               CM* 

p 

a 

I 

£  1 

to  t 

*-    c 
2  t- 

> 

» 

C 

la 

a 

03 
M 

o 

V 

p 

c 

< 

c 

c- 

< 

I 

e 

PC 

Washington, 
st  South  Cen 
Birmingham 

0 

I 

1 

co 
C 
03 
CD 

!i 

1 

o 

OJ 

$ 

(X!   X 

a 

e 

c- 

1 

4 

5 
1 

S  | 

03     O 

o 

|£          1          fc£          S        (2 

c 

« 

CC 

t>-* 

EX 

c 

118 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


M 


•«*< 

ao 

e 

a 

^ 

© 

CO 

to 

§ 

O    CO 

t-a.     OS     acH 

o 

05 

o 

o 

e» 

<M    (M 

US     US     a# 

o 

5 

-Hi 

OS 

M 

H 

o3 

■C-2 

4)   o3 

tf  «3 

£ 

V 

§ 

CO 

CO 

t^    O 

CO     O     CO 

05 

oo 

o 

o 

o 

o 

CO 

CO    o 

-H     CM     i-H 

> 

a, 

iH 

fl 

j 

s 

M 

| 

OO 

eq 

-H 

r-  o 

05     -H     <M 

r^ 

u 

c 

OS 

C 

CM    « 

(D    N    lO 

Cm 

'3 

to 

o 

C 

U> 

o 

to 

CO    OS 

t^      ta.      O 

to 

5 

to 

pa 

CO     -H^ 

0>      H      •* 

US 

lO    lO 

CO     l^     CO 

faO 

9 

H 

q 

AS 

1 

-# 

^ 

a* 

lO 

,_, 

S3 

H<j(H 

o 

o 

o 

N    N    N 

a) 

U3 

«H 

a 

0J  o3 

"3 

<D 

Ph  8 

Q 

"ol 

PH 

5 

a 

„_, 

CO 

o 

Ol 

"5 

<m  ira 

CO    CO     CO 

.£? 

3 

o 

>o 

es 

-* 

CO    ■<*< 

CO 

CO 

CO 

■*  ■* 

US    US    US 

'3 

u 

o 

to 

q 

13 

k 

LO 

CO 

,_, 

r^ 

CO 

C~    CN 

^H      O      t- 

-TO 

a 

oo 

■CO 

CO     i-l 

lO    N    Ol 

o 

la 

q 

^< 

1* 

-tl 

CO 

~F 

t*<    lO 

CO    CO    US 

1? 

H 

ta 

« 

i?§ 

-2 

t- 

CO 

S3 

co 

■HH 

•>!*<      ^ 

CO    CO    CO 

s 

o 

C 

- 

oa 

os    cr 

o> 

«is  '-0 

CI 

O 

o 

o  c 

a 

CD 

a>   o3 

~S 

0H    £ 

q 

(3 

43 

-2 

oc 

r^ 

■o 

oa 

O 

co  »ra 

00      a*      a$< 

CO    us    OO 

M 

t^ 

o 

c- 

Ol 

o  — 

« 

co 

CO 

O] 

CO 

US      US      a* 

'53 

© 

to 

q 

"3 

V. 

00 

CO 

SO 

in 

to 

CO    o- 

-#     ■*     CO 

o 

c 

co 

us 

«o 

ON 

GO 

t^    CM 

in   oj   n 

o 

US 

00 

CC 

ie 

l>-    oc 

CO     CO     i-H 

go 

o 
o 

a 

iH 

CN    Cs)    (M 

4§ 

1 

s 

CO 

to 

lO 

CO 

CO     CC 

CM    CO    CO 

o 

o 

t^ 

CO 

co   it 

O    -H    O 

£  -3 

OS 

w 

•* 

-I* 

CO 

co   co 

■*    •*    * 

oj  o3 

Is 

a 

09 

tf  S 

q 

03 

43 

1 

l~ 

tr. 

■o 

>e 

■o 

-tfl    oc 

CM)    00    CO 

ti 

bC 

»-l 

ts 

■^  -* 

CO    CO    t^ 

"3 

OO 

-H      i- 

^i    ^H    t-( 

to 

1 

13 
o 

£ 

to 

co 

CO 

o 

CO 

co   ej- 

O0   ^    00 

t^ 

1 

to 

5 

t^ 

CO 

lO 

o 

a 

us   u: 

US     CC 

•HH     00     CO 
CO    t^    <M 

d 

o 

CO 

CO 

CO 

ON 

CO    CO 

•*       "*<      Ttl 

II 

03   o3 

« 

CO 

CY 

o 

co 

CO    CO 

0O    IN    00 

a 

CO 

t- 

oc 

oc 

CC 

t^  a 

CO   cc 

O    CO    O 
00    CO    CO 

0J 

ta 

P3 

Ph   3 

q 

2 

c 

© 

g 

O 

a 

a 

O    cc 

O    us    O 

•* 

c 

O 

o 

a 

00    CC 

rj<    US    CO 

'3 

us 

S 

fi 

cr 

ir: 

CO 

CO 

oo    cr 

CO    CO    rti 

a 

es 

<N 

CM 

CNl      CN 

co   co   co 

__ 

1 

© 

a 

o 

o 

a 

O    cc 

O    co    O 

03 

i» 

Ui 

K 

ie 

« 

CO     t- 

N    CO    00 

O 

-# 

© 

us 

SB 

OB 

^H     U" 

■*    CM    ■* 

H 

'3 

en 

O! 

c^ 

oc 

CO     t^ 

O    CM    US 

q 

cs 

-<*< 

CO 

CO 

CO 

rt<    ■■* 

CO    CO    US 

03 

s 

0) 

•c| 

la 

-2 

s 

a 

e 

>.o 

O 

O 

lO 

CO    CO 

us   i- 

o    US    o 

a 

oj  o3 

co 

r^ 

r^ 

l~-  <= 

us    00    us 

5 

03 

5 

5 

as 

cr 

c- 

oc 

OO    CO    CO 

Ph  S3 

q 

1—1 

5 

«0 

§ 

8 

c 

c 

cr 
O 

Q 
C 

O    cr 
tH    CC 

o  oo  o 

CM     '-I    OO 

'53 

CI 

en 

oc 

s 

C7 

OS 

a*<     U- 

CO     ^H      CO 

(H 

5 

en 

•>* 

cr 

as 

t^    OC 

CO      i-l      a* 

MH 

C5 

CO 

CO 

CO 

o 

tN 

CO    CO 

•*     US     T^ 

a 

Tt" 

M 

OS      fl, 
T-i       hi 

1 

h* 

s>  « 

O 

T-t    a 

cr 

CO 

CM             CM 

co          co 

Q 

ft 

as   > 

iH     c« 

a 

e 

g! 

OO 

O             CM 

<0 

<= 

CM             CM 

a 

5 

a 

a 

co 

co          co 

0)      1> 


Bul.  429] 


ECONOMIC   STATUS   OF   THE   GRAPE   INDUSTRY 


119 


1 


•>* 

■M 

s 

03 

g    OO    S    N    N    m 

©     Oi     Oi     O     CM     CM 

©    CM    CO 

o 

Oi 

to   *    ^ 

o 

ft, 

Oi 

01 
M 

H 

03 

i>§ 

u 

V 

©    O    •— i    CO    co    Oi 

lO    O0    lO 

oj 

*■«  '.3 

u 

©     »— 1     ©     Oi     Oi     Oi 

> 

oj 

"3 

tf  S3 

S 

ft, 

+= 

(X 

Xi 

S 

O    H3     U3    CO    Oi    CM 
©     Oi    Oi    O    CM    CO 

N    tjH    H5 

r^ 

u 

I--    t^    lO 

u 

■-1 

h 

,H                        _,     ,_,     ,-H 

^H     rH     .-( 

£ 

ft, 

13 
o 

s. 

(D      H      T)(      H      00      •* 

©    ©    CO 

CO 

B 

n  c   h   m   h  n 

00    O    CM 

tO    N    to 

G 

H 

I 

•II 

00 

©     Oi    CM    CO    CO     Oi 

t*<   r^  ■* 

o  ©  © 

u 

J 

«     Oi    Oi    OO    OO    OO 

o> 

U3 

©   o  o  o  ©  o 

ft 

"o 

$ 

rt  S3 

Q 

03 

ti 

ja 

Jo 

10     CM     CM    U3     CM    113 

co   co   Oi 

bfi 

CO     CM    CM     •"*<    CO     ■* 

r^   oi   t-i 

«3    US    113 

'53 

3 

"S 

(s 

t-  i-i  ■*  co  *#  Q0 

0>     Oi    OO    O    OO     Oi 

*     M     H 

a 

CO    lO    oo 

o 

52 

~ 

CO    CO    CO    ^    ^    ^jf 

CO    CO    113 

0> 

"oj 

H 

a 

g 

si 

«    N    UJ    H    r-l    M 

N    CB    N 

_e 

00     Oi    00    O0    OO    OO 

©  o  o  ©  o  o 

(4 

CM 

o  ©  o 

o> 

ft 

ID 

Oi  03 

3 

tf  S3 

q 

l 

JS 

« 

CO     Oi    Oi    CM    CO    H3 

r~   t*   -* 

M 

»H     Oi    Oi    CM    ©     i-H 

CO    lO    oo 

CO    CM     CM    CO    -*<     ■* 

113    113    -^ 

'S 

9 

£ 

Q 

O 

b 

en  •<*<  t*-  oo  oo  © 

to  ■*  to 

O 

a 

US    O    t—    CO    CM    00 

co   co   t-^ 

■*    U5    ■#    ■*    N    N 

CM    CO    © 

to 

o 
o 

H 

a 

CM    CM    CM 

^g 

00 

1 

cr>   ^   ^   oo   oo   t*« 

CO     CO     CO 

©    U3     CM     00    00     Oi 

t»<    113    -* 

>-i  VJ3 

Oi 

CO    CO    CO    CM    CM    CM 

CO    CO    CO 

OJ 
ft 

O 

q 

^3 

,3 

K 

IO    lO    lO    >o    ■*    CO 

CM    00    CO 

« 

px, 

00 

a 

1H     1-1     »1     i-H     ■«*<     ■* 

CO    O)    N 

o 

£ 

at  oo  t*  t~-  t-  ^ 

CM    00    CM 

r^ 

o 

rt    O    K)    N    115    (O 

OI    O    Ol    »    ^i    ifl 

CO    CO    H3 
113    CO i    i-i 

0 

H 

q 

e*    co   <M   cm   co   co 

■*-*•* 

T?J 

| 

fll    OO    •*    N    N    1(1 

CM    CO    CM 

(-, 

H    O    lO    N    N    O) 

Oi    i-(    Oi 

0) 

ft 

tf  S3 

CO 

a 

IS    N    *    1(5    lO    U) 

tO    N    to 

01 

a 

o3 

,G 

1 

©     ©    ©    O    O    CO 
O    O    O    O    OO    CO 

©    U3    © 

M 

Tjt    113    CO 

"33 

io 

CO    CO    CO    CO    oo    o- 

00    Oi    ^i 

M 

C»     CM    CM    CM     CM    CM 

co   co   co 

ta 

Q 

"oJ 

B 

S8SS5§§ 

©   oo   © 

CM    OO    OO 

o 

"W 

S 

CO    t-h    -*f     Tf     Oi    <M 

Oi    CO     Oi 

h 

a 

t-     (O    CO    N    •*    CC 

oo   ©   co 

s 

CJ 

CO     CO     CO     CO     *#     *J 

lO    CO    113 

•-.2 

©    ©    O    ©    ©     1C 
©    ©    ©    O    O    CN 

©    ©    © 
©    t^    © 

ft 

■£  -2 

00 

Oi    IT5    lO    lO     lO    *>- 

O    CM    O 

0> 

a;  o3 

5 

C-    0O    OO    N    N    t- 

Oi    Oi    Oi 

«  S3 

Q 

1 

5 

a 

SS88SS 

©    00    © 
CM    i-c    O0 

'53 

CM 

^i   cd   Oi   oi   •*   m 
er>   t^   oi  oi  ir^  oc 

Oi     f     Oi 

S-. 

§ 

Oi       >-l        T*t 

h 

C*     CM    CM    CM    CO    CO 

■*    113    •"*< 

d 

o 

*< 

t4 

"c3 
G 
'-3 

a>   a) 

«'  J3 

«s"  J>' 

t-I     bJD  © 

t^     Oi 

r+           to 

"" 

o 

^  §s 

Oi     Oi 

CM             CM 

Oi             OS 

m 

cd 

33 

Q 

2 

5*      ^     Oi    H     N    OO 

*H    «8   ©   "H   »-i    -i 

©             CM 
CM             CM 

Oi             Oi 

u 

T3  t3 

S3  2 

'o  13 

x  a 

CJ  -~ 

£  S 

03  of 

«  P^ 


--  cu 
O  J 

"osi^S 

Tj'ftT 


•H  g.2 

e2   3   Oi 

1*1 

ca^1  S 


§i-l  2 


ocl.t3 


u02& 

S  =«  fl 
2  "<n  O 


no's 

ojD^  o 


5^  ^ 

G  >>*S 
<*4    OJ   S 

0^3  o 

IM 

S  o  o3 
3  tn  ^ 
G  o3^ 

^3  o  £ 

%%> 

^o» 

O    ScM 

fl'SS 
S  ^  g 

oi  cUvG 


0)  O  -* 


a>^3 

tn    ft 

a)  °3 

S  "^ 

o3  G 


tf. 


T!  ft 

o'» 
I- 

u 

!§2 

G  oo 

^2 

G  M 


O  03 


^1 


■"  ft 
Soo 

O  CM 


t3  M 


00    (-i 


aft 

rn    ft 


-32 


■as 


T3    W, 


S  jss  £  -'  r  m 


-       T3   CJO      "^.h 


II 


G-SO^-O  C 

?-a  §^  E£^  & 

o>  "G  °  °^  oo  3  ■** 

-°  S  sw"S23 
S5a2xSo     .gg 

>>  V  S3  o3  »X3'Q-0't3  . 

^^a^.^-^oo0.>> 

BS^g|2Ss5-3 

s>.-l?tghflSs.s-a 


!pq 


O^r-l 


MS 

i?G 


ft  o 
ft  « 

03  G 


II 


s  s 


co  u 

.    OJ 

^  ft 


>>£« 


ess 


ft^go.ftft^^°aS|SS 

OX-0   03  o  OX^  ftOQoojjO       00« 

•^OH-G_§OOEh  «gO     cm  a-g 

-»2               0J-"                    5   3)          .73     .     •  .         M 

03      .      .'tJ-U      .      .      .2_,      .'-(flCM'*<  UJN    - 

T3CMCO    _    OUSCOOO^TJOi— l    S^H^  rtrt    g 

,„     .     .J3G     -     -     -^C^^;  ™     ■     ■  •     ••8 

goo^gooo-Ssoo^oo    oo2 

CJ             tn  tn  „J3             S               •             M 

3            So3  oo  e3           13           +i           i 

O-^cj  £oj            G^^3 

02             O  >>  £&.5t3             S 


120 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


TABLE  25 

Prices  and  Purchasing  Power  of  California  Grapes  by  Varieties,  1917-1926. 

Eastern  Delivered- Auction  and  Estimated  F.O.B.  Shipping  Point 


Gross 

auction 

price 

per 

lug 


Dol- 
lars 


Estimated  f.o.b.  shipping  points 


Price 


Per 

lug 


Dol- 


Per 
net 
ton 


Dol- 
lars 


Per 

cent  of 
1919 


Per 

cent 


Purchasing 
power 


Per 
net 
ton 


Dol- 


Per 

cent  of 

1919 


Per 

cent 


Alicante  Bouschet 


1.37 

.83 

62.25 

47.6 

34.58 

1.99 

1.30 

97.80 

74.8 

49.39 

2.46 

1.74 

130.80 

100.0 

62.29 

3.78 

2.81 

210.75 

161.2 

91.63 

2.96 

2.05 

153.75 

117.5 

102.50 

2.69 

1.86 

139.50 

106.7 

91.78 

2.26 

1.46 

109.50 

83.7 

70.19 

2.43 

1.62 

121.50 

92.9 

79.93 

2.05 

1.27 

95.25 

72.8 

58.80 

1.65 

.89 

66.75 

51.0 

43.34 

55.5 

79.3 
100.0 
147.1 
164.6 
147.3 
112.7 
128.3 
94.4 
69.6 


Gross 

auction 

price 

per 

lug 


Dol- 
lars 


Estimated  f.o.b.  shipping  points 


Price 


Per 
lug 


Dol- 
lars 


Per 
net 
ton 


Dol- 


Per 

cent  of 
1919 


Per 

cent 


Purchasing 
power 


Per 
net 
ton 


Dol- 
lars 


Per 

cent  of 

1919 

Per 
cent 


Carignane 


1.30 
1.68 
2.18 
3.27 
2.49 
1.79 
2.03 
2.02 
1.54 
1.47 


.76 

57.00 

51.6 

31.67 

1.01 

76.05 

68.8 

38.41 

1.48 

110.55 

100.0 

52.64 

2.33 

174.75 

158.1 

75.98 

1.64 

123.00 

111.3 

82.00 

1.03 

77.25 

69.9 

50.82 

1.25 

93.75 

84.8 

60.10 

1.24 

93.00 

84.1 

61.18 

.79 

59.25 

53.6 

36.57 

.73 

54.75 

49.5 

35.55 

60.2 
73.0 
100.0 
144.3 
155.8 
96.5 
114.2 
116.2 
69.5 
67.5 


Mission 


Petite  Sirah 


1.30 
1.73 
1.94 
3.18 
2.43 
1.43 
1.66 
1.73 
1.11 
1.31 


.76 

57.00 

60.6 

31.67 

1.06 

79.80 

84.8 

40.30 

1.26 

94.05 

100.0 

44.79 

2.25 

168.75 

179.4 

73.37 

1.55 

116.25 

123.6 

77.50 

.69 

51.75 

55.0 

34.05 

.90 

67.50 

71.8 

43.27 

.97 

72.75 

77.4 

47.86 

.39 

29.25 

31.1 

18.05 

.58 

43  50 

46.3 

28.25 

70.7 

90.0 

100.0 

163.8 

173.0 

76.0 

96.6 

106.9 

40.3 

63.1 


2.29 
1.79 
2.93 
2.16 
2.04 
1.46 
1.75 
1.44 
1.27 


1.58 

1.12 

2.02 

1.30 

1.26 

.72 

.99 

.70 

.54 


118.80 
83.55 

151.50 
97.50 
94.50 
54.00 
74.25 
52.50 
40.50 


142.2 
100.0 
181.3 
116.7 
113.1 
64.6 
88.9 
62.8 
48.5 


60.00 
39.79 
65.87 
65.00 
62.17 
34.62 
48.85 
32.41 
26.47 


150.8 
100.0 
165.5 
163.4 
156.2 
87.0 
122.8 
81.5 
66.5 


ZlNFANDEL 


Average  of  Four  Wine  Varieties 
(Excludes  Alicante  Bouschet) 


1.16 
1.69 
1.91 
2.53 
1.94 
2.07 
1.49 
1.69 
1.55 
1.22 


.63 

47.25 

51.5 

26.25 

1.02 

76.80 

83.7 

38.79 

1.23 

91.80 

100.0 

43.71 

1.65 

123.75 

134.8 

53.80 

1.10 

82.50 

89.9 

55.00 

1.29 

96.75 

105.4 

63.65 

.75 

56.25 

61.3 

36.06 

.93 

69.75 

76.0 

45.89 

.80 

60.00 

65.4 

37.04 

.50 

37.50 

40.9 

24.35 

60.1 
88.7 
100.0 
123.1 
125.8 
145.6 
82.5 
105.0 
84.7 
55.7 


1.25 

.72 

54.00 

56.5 

30.00 

1.85 

1.17 

88.05 

92.2 

44.47 

1.96 

1.27 

95.55 

100.0 

45.50 

2.98 

2.06 

154.50 

161.7 

67.17 

2.26 

1.40 

105.00 

109.9 

70.00 

1.83 

1.06 

79.50 

83.2 

52.30 

1.66 

.90 

67.50 

70.6 

43.27 

1.74 

.98 

73.50 

76.9 

48.36 

1.39 

.65 

48.75 

51.0 

30.09 

1.32 

.59 

44.25 

46.3 

28.73 

63.1 


Average  of  Five  Wine  Varieties 


Average  of  Muscat  and  Thompson 
Seedless 


1.28 

.74 

55.50 

54.3 

30.83 

1.88 

1.20 

90.30 

88.3 

45.61 

2.06 

1.37 

102.30 

100.0 

48.71 

3.14 

2.21 

165.75 

162.0 

72.06 

2.40 

1.53 

114.75 

112.2 

76.50 

2.00 

1.22 

91.50 

89.4 

60.20 

1.78 

1.02 

76.50 

74.8 

49.04 

1.96 

1.18 

88.50 

86.5 

58.22 

1.66 

.90 

67.50 

66.0 

41.67 

1.50 

.76 

57.00 

55.7 

37.01 

63.3 
93.6 
100.0 
147.9 
157.1 
123.6 
100.7 
119.5 
85.5 
76.0 


1.23 

.70 

52.50 

65.2 

29.17 

1.52 

.87 

64.80 

80.4 

32.73 

1.75 

1.08 

80.55 

100.0 

38.36 

2.02 

1.17 

87.75 

108.9 

38.15 

1.54 

.73 

54.75 

68.0 

36.50 

1.52 

.77 

57.75 

71.7 

37.99 

1.40 

.66 

49.50 

61.5 

31.73 

1.11 

.39 

29.25 

36.3 

19.24 

1.09 

.37 

27.75 

34.5 

17.13 

1.06 

.35 

26.25 

32.6 

17.05 

76.0 
85.3 
100.0 
99.5 
95.2 
99.0 
82.7 
50.2 
44.7 
44.4 


BUL.  429]  ECONOMIC  STATUS  OF  THE  GRAPE  INDUSTRY 

TABLE  25—  (Concluded) 


121 


Year 


Gross 

auction 

price 

per 

lug 


Dol- 
lars 


Estimated  f.o.b.  shipping  points 


Price 


Per 

lug 


Dol- 
lars 


Per 
net 
ton 


Dol- 
lars 


Per 

cent  of 
1919 


Per 
cent 


Purchasing 
power 


Per 
net 
ton 


Dol- 
lars 


Per 

cent  of 
1919 


Per 
cent 


Gross 
auction 
price 

per 

lug 


Dol- 
lars 


Estimated  f.o.b.  shipping  points 


Price 


Per 

lug 


Dol- 
lars 


Per 
net 
ton 


Dol- 
lars 


Per 

cent  of 

1919 


Per 

cent 


Purchasing 
power 


Per 
net 
ton 


Dol- 
lars 


Per 

cent  of 
1919 


Per 

cent 


Muscat 


Thompson  Seedless 


1917 
1918 
1919 
1920 
1921 
1922 
1923. 
1924 
1925 
1926. 


1.05 

.53 

39.75 

56.7 

22.08 

1.49 

.84 

62.55 

89.3 

31.59 

1.59 

.93 

70.05 

100.0 

33.36 

2.13 

1.27 

95.25 

136.0 

41.41 

1.54 

.73 

54.75 

78.2 

36.50 

1.45 

.71 

53.25 

76  0 

35.03 

1.13 

.41 

30.75 

43.9 

19.71 

1.13 

.41 

'30.75 

43.9 

20.23 

1.07 

.36 

27.00 

38.5 

16.67 

1.02 

.31 

23.25 

33.2 

15.10 

66.2 
94.7 
100.0 
124.1 
109.4 
105.0 
59.1 
60.6 
50.0 
45.3 


1.40 
1.55 
1.90 
1.91 
1.54 
1.58 
1.67 
1.09 
1.10 
1.09 


.86 

64.50 

70.8 

35.83 

.89 

67.05 

73.6 

33.86 

1  21 

91.05 

100.0 

43.36 

1.07 

80.25 

88.1 

34.89 

.73 

54.75 

60.1 

36.50 

.83 

62.25 

68.4 

40.95 

.92 

69.00 

75.8 

44.23 

.37 

27.75 

30.5 

18.26 

.38 

28.50 

31.3 

17.60 

.37 

27.75 

30.5 

18.02 

78.1 
100.0 
80.5 
84.2 
94.4 
102.0 
42.1 
40.6 
41.6 


CORNICHON 


1917 

1918 
1919 
1920 
1921 
1922 
1923 
1924 
1925 
1926 


1.33 

.79 

59.25 

50.5 

32.92 

2.13 

1.43 

107.55 

91.7 

54.32 

2.27 

1.56 

117.30 

100.0 

55.86 

2.83 

1.92 

144  00 

122.8 

62.61 

2.39 

1.52 

114.00 

97.2 

76.00 

1.61 

.86 

64.50 

55.0 

42.43 

1.50 

.76 

57.00 

48.6 

36.54 

1.50 

.76 

57.00 

48.6 

37.50" 

1.33 

.60 

45.00 

38.4 

27.78 

1.27 

.54 

40.50 

34.5 

26.30 

58.9 
97.2 
100.0 
112.1 
136.1 
76.0 
65.4 
67.1 
49.7 
47.1 


Sources  of  data: 

Col.  1.  The  prices  of  individual  varieties  are  true  or  weighted  seasonal  average  prices  of  daily 
delivered-acution  sales.  Averages  of  several  varieties  are  simple  or  unweighted  averages.  All  prices 
but  those  of  Thompson  Seedless  are  based  on  sales  at  New  York  City  only,  including  Jersey  City  in 
the  case  of  wine  varieties  and  Muscats  beginning  with  the  1924  season.  Years  1917-1923  cover  the  whole 
shipping  season  through  December  for  all  varieties  and  are  computed  from  daily  data  compiled  by  the 
Stewart  Fruit  Company  from  the  New  York  Fruit  Reporter.  Thompson  Seedless  prices,  however, 
for  1917-1919  are  Chicago  prices  per  crate  based  on  the  Chicago  Fruit  and  Vegetable  Reporter.  Years 
1924-1926  include  the  season's  sales  from  August  through  the  middle  of  November  only.  Data  for  years 
1924-1925  are  from  Schultz,  C.  E.,  California  Grape  Deal  for  1925  Season  (mimeo.),  and  year  1926  from 
U.  S.  Bur.  Agr.  Econ.,  Daily  Market  Report  on  California  Grapes  (mimeo.),  No.  80,  p.  5.     Nov.  6,  1926. 

Col.  2.  Computed  by  subtracting  freight  and  refrigeration  charges  (see  table  24,  page  118)  and  a 
sales  commission  of  7  per  cent  from  the  gross  eastern  delivered-auction  price  in  col.  1. 

Col.  3.  Computed  from  col.  2  by  multiplying  by  75,  the  approximate  number  of  lugs  of  a  gross 
weight  of  30  lbs.  in  a  short  ton. 

Col.  5.  Col.  3  divided  by  the  U.  S.  Bureau  of  Labor  Statistics  annual  all-commodity  wholesale  price 
index  for  the  U.  S.  as  given  in  table  18,  page  86. 


122 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA — EXPERIMENT    STATION 


TABLE  26 

Farm  Price  and  Purchasing  Power  of  Chief  Farm  Products  of  California 
Grape-Producing  Sections,  1919-1926 


Price 

in 
dollars 

Purchasing 
power 

Price 

in 
dollars 

Purchasing 
power 

Price 

in 
dollars 

Purchasing 
power 

Price 

in 
dollars 

Purchasing 
power 

Year 

Dol- 
lars 

Per 

cent  of 

1919- 

1925 

Dol- 
lars 

Per 

cent  of 

1919- 

1925 

Dol- 
lars 

Per 

cent  of 
1919- 
1925 

Dol- 
lars 

Per 

cent  of 
1919- 
1925 

1.  All  Grapes 

2.  Table  Grapes 

3.  Raisin  Grapes 

4.  Wine  Grapes 

Per 

ton 

Per 
ton 

Per 
cent 

Per 

ton 

Per 

ton 

Per 
cent 

Per 

ton 

Per 
ton 

Per 
cent 

Per 
ton 

Per 

ton 

36  7 

23.8 
32.6 
54.7 
42.8 
25.6 
41.5 
37.0 
29.2* 

Per 
cent 

1919-1925 
average.. 

1919 

44  30 

55.13 
65.30 
61.70 

40.90 
25.86 
32.93 
28.26 
25.96* 

25  6 

26.2 
28.4 
41.1 
26.9 
16.6 
21.7 
17.4 
16.9* 

100 

102 
111 

161 
105 

65 

85 

68 

66* 

56 

75 

75 
80 
60 
40 
40 
20 
25* 

32  5 

35.7 
32.6 
53.3 
39.5 
25.6 
26.3 
12.3 
16.2* 

100 

110 
100 
164 
122 

79 

81 

38 

50* 

34  28 

52.50 
58.14 
46.94 
26.59 
17.75 
18.02 
20.00 
20.00* 

19  4 

25.0 
25.3 
31.3 
17.5 
11.4 
11  8 
12.3 
13.0* 

100 

.129 
130 
161 
90 
59 
61 
64 
67* 

62 

50 
75 
82 
65 
40 
63 
60 
45* 

100 

65 

1920 

89 

1921 

149 

1922 

117 

1923 

70 

1924 

113 

1925 

101 

1926* 

80* 

5.  Deciduous  Tree 
Fruits 

6.  Truck  Crops 

7.  All  Field  Crops 

8.  Cotton 

Per 

vton 

Per 

ton 

Per 
cent 

Per 
car- 
load 

Per 

car- 
load 

Per 
cent 

Per 

ton 

Per 
ton 

Per 
cent 

Per 
lb. 

Per 

lb. 

Per 
cent 

1919-1925 
average... 

1919 

63  41 

87.46 
86.38 
60.75 
59.59 
39.20 
56  07 
54.39 
45.46* 

36  4 

41.6 
37.6 
40.5 
39.2 
25.1 
36.9 
33.6 
29.5* 

100 

114 
103 
111 
108 

69 
101 

92 

81* 

965 

1,012 

1,005 

732 

1,229 

1,178 

803 

798 

754* 

570 

482 
437 

489 
809 
756 
528 
492 
489* 

100 

85 

77 

86 
142 
133 

93 

86 

86* 

25.72 

35.91 
28.44 
17.60 
22.47 
24.05 
27.56 
23.98 
20.78* 

14  9 

17.1 
12.4 
11.7 
14.8 
"15.4 
18.1 
14.8 
13.5* 

100 

115 

83 
79 
99 

103 

121 
99 
91* 

.26 

.43 
.18 
.18 
.26 
.32 
.24 
.22 
.14* 

.153 

.205 
.078 
.120 
.171 
.205 
.158 
.136 
.091* 

100 

134 

1920 

51 

1921 

78 

1922 

112 

1923 

134 

1924 

103 

1925 

89 

1926* 

59* 

Bul.  429] 


ECONOMIC   STATUS   OF   THE   GRAPE   INDUSTRY 


123 


TABLE  26—  (Concluded) 


Price 

in 
dollars 

Purchasing 
power 

Price 

in 
dollars 

Purchasing 
power 

Price 

in 
dollar.- 

Purchasing 
power 

Price 

in 
dollar* 

Purchasing 
power 

Year 

Dol- 
lars 

Per 

cent  of 

1919- 

1925 

Dol- 
lars 

Per 

cent  of 

1919- 

1925 

Dol- 
lars 

Per 

cent  of 

1919- 

1925 

Dol- 
lars 

Per 

cent  of 
1919- 
1925 

9.  Hay  (tame) 

10.  Beans 

11.  Butter 

12.  Eggs 

Per 

ton 

Per 

ton 

Per 
cent 

Per 

100  lbs. 

Per 

100  lbs. 

Per 
cent 

Per 
lb. 

Per 
lb. 

Per 
cent 

Per 
doz. 

Per 
doz. 

Per 
cent 

1919-1925 
average.. 

1919 

16 

17 
20 
11 
15 
14 
22 
14 
12* 

9  4 

8.1 
8.7 
7.3 
9.9 
8.9 
14  5 
8.6 
7.8* 

100 

86 

93 

78 
105 

95 
154 

91 

83* 

3  93 

4.35 
3.30 
2.80 
3.75 
4.00 
5.20 
4.10 
3.00* 

2  34 

2.07 
1.43 
1.87 
2.47 
2.56 
3.42 
2.53 
1.95* 

100 

88 

61 

80 
106 
109 
146 
108 

83* 

.509 

.586 
.625 
.453 
.436 
.473 
.471 
.517 
.463* 

.296 

.279 
.272 
.302 
.287 
.303 
.310 
.319 
.300* 

100 

94 

92 
102 

97 
102 
105 
108 
101* 

.403 

.503 
.510 
.397 
.332 
.340 
.349 
.390 
.338* 

.233 

.240 
.222 
.265 
.218 
.218 
.230 
.241 
.219* 

100 

103 

1920 

95 

1921 

113 

1922 

94 

1923 

94 

1924 

99 

1925 

103 

1926* 

94* 

13.  Swine 

14.  California 

Farm  Wages 

(without  board) 

15.  Relative  U.  S. 
General  Wages 

16.  Relative  Prices 

of  Non-Agricul- 
tural Commodities 

Per 
head 

Per 
head 

Per 
cent 

Per 
day 

Per 

day 

Per 
cent 

Per 

cent  of 

June, 

1914 

Per 

cent  of 
1910- 
1914 

Per 

cent  of 
1919- 
1925 

Per 

cent  of 

1910- 

1914 

Per 

cent  of 

1910- 

1914 

Per 

cent  of 
1919- 
1925 

1919-1925 
average. 

1919 

13  13 

18.00 
14.50 
11.70 
11.80 
10.50 
10.20 
15.20 
10.20* 

7.6 

8.6 
6.3 
7.8 
7.8 
6.7 
6.7 
9.4 
6.6* 

100 

113 
83 
103 
103 

88 
88 
124 

87* 

3.75 

3.90 
4.60 
3.35 
3.40 
4.00 
3.40 
3.60 
3.65* 

2  19 

1.86 
2.00 
2.23 
2.24 
2.56 
2.24 
2.22 
2.37* 

100 

85 

91 
102 
102 
117 
102 
101 
108* 

209 

185 
222 
203 
197 
214 
218 
223 
229* 

124 

88 

96 
135 
130 
137 
143 
138 
149* 

100 

71 

78 
109 
105 
111 
116 
111 
119* 

182 

199 
241 
167 
168 
171 
162 
165 
161* 

105  6 

94.8 
104.8 
111.3 
110.5 
109.6 
106.6 
101.9 
104.4* 

100 

90 

1920 

99 

1921 

105 

1922 

105 

1923 

104 

1924 

101 

1925 

96 

1926* 

99* 

*  1926  data  are  preliminary  and  subject  to  revision. 

Sources  of  data: 

Items  1-10  and  13-14  are  the  final  estimated  farm  prices, except  that  those  for  1926  are  preliminary 
and  are  from  the  California  Crop  Report  for  1925  or  mimeographed  preliminary  reports  of  the  California 
Cooperative  Crop  Reporting  Service.  Truck  crops  do  not  include  onions  or  potatoes,  which  are  here 
included  among  field  crops.  California  farm  wages  for  1923-1926  are  averages  of  reported  wages  paid 
to  hired  farm  labor  in  July.  Preceding  years  are  an  average  of  quarterly  reports.  Year  1926  from 
Monthly  Supplement  of  Crops  and  Markets  for  July. 

Purchasing  power  per  unit  is  actual  price  in  the  first  column  deflated  or  divided  by  the  U.  S.  all- 
commodity  wholesale  price  index  for  the  corresponding  year  on  a  1910-1914  base  and  given  to  the  nearest 
tenth  of  a  dollar  only  (see  footnote  to  col.  5,  table  18,  p.  86). 

The  purchasing  power  for  each  year  is  expressed  as  a  percentage  of  the  average  purchasing  power 
for  the  years  1919-1925. 


124 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


:hgScs 

3  g  t  ft  a>  S 


n-om 

JO  cjuaa  J8J 


spunoj 


a3^J3A13 

¥-1-0161 

JO  JU80  J9J 


spuuoj 


¥1-0161 
jo  'juao  jaj 


snoj, 


spunod 
jos.000'1 


aSBjaA'B 

¥1-0161 
jo  -juao  ja^ 


rtrHrHN-H(M( 


l(NINN»MNIM( 


00)»( 


•  t^CMI^^HiOCOUOCO 


OJ0005MOO-HNN>Ot03>atDN>OCO(N 


t*  to  -*  i— i  >o  cm  -*t<  to  oo  r^ 


i  m  co  m  co  as  io 


>  *  Ol  O)  35  N  N  ffi  m  io  ■ 


«    I 


,H         -h  -h  — <  CM  ^h  -h  CM  CM  CM  CM  ! 


2  I 


HHiHrtiHNINHHrtNtN 


suox 


spunod 
jos.000'1 


aS-BjaA-B 

¥1-0161 

jo  iuao  jaj 


suox 


S  c  3 

ft  OJ    § 
SI?    >> 


ag^jaAB 
f-I-0161 

jo  cjuao  ja  j 


OO^CONCNI 

CMNnJOmf.    . 

■^omoiOiHiOrtMi 
ooeo  to  oo  h-Teo  oT-^jToT  o  i 


oioco-*cD-*i-CTt<moo> 


O  i-H  lO 

—  O  OS 

CM  i-h 


O         to  «H  h-  -*  Tf<  -^  I 


•^  CO  CO  CM  00  CM  C 


•  CO  CO  CM  ■ 

iO*tOO!DN>"     " 

OO  i— i  CO  00  O  CO  i 

CO  CO  CM  nVcoc    __ 

niNmNHcooiONooMomtecooa) 


irtiONNinOCOH 


SUO^ 


aS-BjaAt; 

fT-0I6I 
jo  ^uao  ja  j 


suox 


aS^jaA-B 

¥-1-0161 

jo  iuao  ja<j 


suox 


.2  3 
+j  cu 
§>> 
■eg- 


aS^jaA-B 

¥-1-0161 
jo  cjuao  jaj 


suox 


e<»       mKooi 


i^OC)OTJ31-HMtNC<5tON!OH 
00_  ■*  >«  l>-_CM  CO -#  CROO  "SNOiONtONqN 

oo  oo  oT^tTt^Too  co  oo      cioo'oKcocoO'-ia 


)  O0  CM  lO  O  OO  I 

-  1  co  CO  CM  CM  : 

'■^ocDOmin^ajioi 

"to  f-Tco  >C5  tOCM  00         NNNOOO' 
(HrtlNHrtH  CM  CM  y-i  ' 


■&  >o  "0  CO  CM  CM  t-h 


O  «H  O  TjH  CM  I 


-  i  ~ .  •  n  o  co  o  i 


rHHCOlOMCOOl 

coioN-nsaoooO't 


NOiOOOSI 


"*NCOMNONNt001in'-i[ 
iir^coococooococoioooio' 


.— llOCOlOCCCOrtlcmCTor^,— I,— u 


Tfl  co  '-H  to  OS 


ICOOCOOOIOIOCDNCDUCIIOI 


NMeiONOOl^iOOOMHi 


CT>  0O  0O  CM  00  < 


I  i-H  CO  CO  CM  CM  CO 


OitOCJSCMCOtOtOOOl 


Hr-lrtHrtiHrHINCNHOO 


fe<9» 


lCMC0-*"0tOt^00a5O^CMC0-<tl>OtO 

HrHrHrtHrHrtOCNCNlMlNNW 


I     ft 
m 

!  -I 


oS.2 

31° 


2  *>   fl 

""  aS 

°°  O  <b 
CO    j3    ^ 

»  2^ 

rt    fl    0J 

«lr 

OJ  c3 

•it 

SI 

fesl 
llE 

0«2  O 
£  >>>> 

03  3  3 
°.SS 
i^SS 


CM    o 


u  2 


Si 

O   of 


§   =3C 

A      HC 

■•"■   O 

2>Q. 


<U        *j        -u 


3     2' 


£       0 


3*S 


13  -2- 

a>  cy 

M  ft 

s-e 

'   "Sii- 

■  § a 


c4  5  fl   «T)  3,=? 


s.r>5  Oto.^  u 


s 

a 

Q  §3 


iO^- 


g  3  3  °  "i."? 

S^3i5-:^5 


"T3  =< 
OJ' 


ego. 


"2 -5  ft 


a. 


SSaJ 
o  i     . 

cmhJ 

A  3^ 

s    * 

»s'ft 


cj-cs  b 


O   2   Q.1 

SS-2 


<i-2^8  3|g§0- 
ft-o  g.-  k 

ftT3 

S-2^' 


03    >    B  ^h    OO    S  ^    O.H  "S 

04^ji'grO'ft73     - 


2  -j^  feubfl  2<^^  §Q     a.w 


!^S  ftr 


M^ 


^<m  o  5 

.  ft  ai  r9     •     •  _•  JS  b  — i  ^  < 

OFo  ST"©  S'o^'o'o  o  o*  o  ct 


HH 


Bul.  429] 


ECONOMIC   STATUS   OF   THE   GRAPE   INDUSTRY 


125 


TABLE  28 
United  States  Monthly  Shipments  of  Grapes  by  Cpiief  Sections  of  Origin, 

Seasons  1920-1926 


Number  of  carloads 

Per  cent  of  United  States  total 

United 
States 
total 

All 
States 

but 
Cali- 
fornia 

California 

All 

States 
but 
Cali- 
fornia 

California 

Month 

o 
H 

6 

SS'jS 

IS 

a  o 

XII 

"3 
o 
H 

is  22 

CQ 

6 

a  "8 

-Q  to 

a  o 
S3 '5 

-C  to 

m 

1920 

Season  total 

41,310 

17 

389 

5,195 

12,958 

19,869 

2,857 

24 

1 

12,478 

28,832 

17 

383 

5,121 

10,701 

10,366 

2,220 

23 

1 

14,149 

12,732 

1,951 

17 

226 

287 

1,038 

383 

30  2 

69  8 

100.0 
98.5 
98.6 
82.6 
52.2 
77.7 
96.0 

100.0 

34.3 

30  8 

4  7 

100  0 

July... 

6 

74 

2,257 

9,503 

637 

1 

151 
3,861 
4,484 
4,168 
1,461 
23 
1 

6 

973 

5,179 

5,815 

759 

1.5 

1.4 

17.4 

47.8 

22.3 

4.0 

38.9 
74.3 
34.5 
21.0 
51.1 
96.0 
100.0 

1.5 
18.8 

40.0 
29.3 
26.6 

58  1 

5  5 

September 

8.1 
1.9 

1921 

Season  total 

37,817 

12 

430 

3,403 

17,062 

14,929 

1,973 

6 

2 

4,473 

33,344 

12 

418 

3,110 

14,328 

13,502 

1,966 

6 

2 

17,628 

13,829 

1,887 

12 

211 

132 

1,069 

450 
13 

11  8 

88  2 

100.0 

97.2 
91.5 
84.0 
90.5 
99.6 
100.0 
100.0 

46.7 

36  6 

5  0 

100  0 

July.... 

12 

293 

2,734 

1,407 

7 

207 
2,616 
7,258 
6,238 
1,301 
6 
2 

2.8 
8.5 
16.0 
9.4 
0.4 

48.2 
76.9 
42.5 
41.4 
66.0 
100.0 
100.0 

48  9 

362 
6,001 
6,814 

652 

10.7 
35.2 
46.1 
33.0 

3.9 

September 

October 

6.3 
3.0 

November 

0.6 

1922 

Season  total 

June 

59,919 

1 

324 

4,751 

22,451 

25,794 

6,366 

225 

7 

15,967 

43,952 

1 

315 

3,928 

16,551 

16,968 

5,967 

215 

7 

24,243 

15,264 

4,445 

1 

220 

165 

2,185 

1,743 

129 

26.6 

73  4 

100.0 

97.2 
82.7 
73.7 
65.8 
93.7 
95.6 
100.0 

40.6 

25  4 

7  4 

100.0 

July 

9 

823 

5,900 

8,826 

399 

10 

95 
3,400 
7,476 
8,728 
4,349 
195 

2.8 

17.3 

26.3 

34.2 

6.3 

4.4 

29.3 
71.6 
33.3 
33.8 
68.3 
86.7 

67.9 

363 

6,890 

6,497 

1,489 

20 

5 

7.6 
30.7 
25.2 
23.4 

8.9 
71.4 

3.5 

September • 

9.7 
6.8 

November 

2.0 

2 

28.6 

1923 

Season  total 

65,336 

33 

593 

5,785 

23,492 

27,220 

7,474 

726 

13 

9,988 

55,348 

33 

577 

5,540 

20,448 

20,712 

7,299 

726 

13 

31,380 

20,175 

3,793 

33 

340 

209 

1,827 

1,368 

14 

2 

15  3 

84  7 

100.0 

97.3 
95.8 
87.0 
76.1 
97.7 
100.0 
100.0 

48  0 

30  9 

5  8 

100.0 

July 

16 

245 

3,044 

6,508 

175 

231 
4,812 
10,432 
10,295 
4,919 
678 
13 

6 

519 

8,189 

9,049 

2,366 

46 

2.7 
4.2 
13.0 
23.9 
2.3 

39.0 
83.2 
44.4 
37.8 
65.8 
93.4 
100.0 

1.0 

9.0 
34.9 
33.2 
31.7 

6.3 

57.3 

3.6 

September 

October 

7.8 
5.0 

November 

December 

1.9 
0.3 

Number  of  carloads  by  months  compiled  from  mimeographed  releases  of  the  U.  S.  Bureau  of  Agri- 
cultural Economics. 


126  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA — EXPERIMENT    STATION 

TABLE  28—  (Continued) 


Number  of  carloads 

Per  cent  of  United  States  total 

United 
States 
total 

All 
States 

but 
Cali- 
fornia 

California 

All 
States 

but 
Cali- 
fornia 

California 

Month 

o 

5 

'Si 

6 

fl-g 

q3*H 
A  to 

so 

"3 

o 
H 

6 

Co 
^  "C 

Co 
X,n 

m 

1924 

Season  total 

69,933 

7 

1,251 

7,447 

26,215 

28,892 

5,982 

131 

8 

12,238 

57,695 

7 

1,216 

7,165 

25,547 

18,975 

4,678 

99 

8 

36,827 

17,204 

3,664 

7 

501 

79 

1,907 

1,158 

4 

6 

2 

17.5 

82  5 

100.0 

97.2 
96.2 
97.5 
65.7 
78.2 
75.6 
100.0 

52.7 

24.6 

5  2 

100.0 

July 

35 

282 

668 

9,917 

1,304 

32 

.     710 
5,926 
14,673 
11,678 
3,743 
91 
6 

5 

1,160 

8,967 

6,139 

931 

2 

2.8 
3.4 
2.5 
34.3 
21.8 
24.4 

56.8 
79.6 
56.0 
40.4 
62.6 
69.5 
75.0 

0.4 
15.6 
34.2 
21.2 
15.6 

1.5 

40.0 

1.1 

September 

October 

November 

December 

7.3 
4.0 
0.1 
4.6 
25.0 

1925* 

Season  total 

81,669 

88 
1,314 

5,578 

34,769 

34,274 

5,285 

327 

34 

5,811 

11 

69 

696 

1,526 

3,340 

169 

75,858 

77 

1,245 

4,882 

33,243 

30,934 

5,116 

327 

34 

52,339 

19,382 

4,137 

77 

373 

92 

2,281 

1,270 

10 

21 

13 

7  2 

12.5 
5.3 

12.5 
4.4 
9.7 
3.2 

92  8 

87.5 
94.7 
87.5 
95.6 
90.3 
96.8 
100.0 
100.0 

64  1 

23  7 

5.1 

87.5 

July 

870 
4,462 
20,842 
21,337 
4,519 
288 
21 

2 

328 

10,120 

8,327 

587 
18 

66.2 
80.0 
59.9 
62.3 
85.5 
88.1 
61.8 

0.2 
5.9 
29.1 
24.3 
11.1 
5.5 

28.4 

1.6 

September 

6.6 
3.7 

November 

0.2 
6.4 

38.2 

1926* 
Season  total 

77,564 

118 

2,257 

8,033 

29,715 

29,743 

7,252 

446 

14,506 

89 

455 

763 

2,358 

8,299 

2,533 

9 

63,058 

29 

1,802 

7,270 

27,357 

21,444 

4,719 

437 

43,632 

16,397 

3,029 

29 
155 
267 
1,932 
644 
2 

18.7 

75.4 

20.2 

9.5 

7.9 

27.9 

34.9 

2.0 

81  3 

24.6 
79.8 
90.5 
92.1 
72.1 
65.1 
98.0 

56  2 

21.2 

3  9 

24.6 

July 

1,635 
4,794 
15,671 
16,583 
4,512 
437 

12 

2,209 

9,754 

4,217 

205 

72.5 
59.6 
52.7 
55.7 
62.2 
98.0 

0.5 
27.5 
32.8 
14.1 

2.8 

6.8 

3.4 

September 

6.6 
2.3 

November 

0.1 

\ 

*  Data  for  1925  and  1926  are  preliminary  and  subject  to  revision. 

Number  of  carloads  by  months  compiled  from  mimeographed  releases  of  the  U.  S.  Bureau  of  Agri- 
cultural Economics. 


